16-01-2002 22:47									#91
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think a combination of disease and logistical problems will give us the needed limits on TF size eventually. This would end up being something similar in character to what's I think in EU.

Richard, I can't find a good description of military supply limitations anywhere. The basics are:

1. Forces need to be supplied with food and other goods depending upon the army size, composition and technology.

2. These supplies are obtained by Merchants functioning as military quartermasters. They buy supplies using funds allocated by player or military AI. Supplies are bought at local markets or shipped, and the merchant needs to transport them to the troops from where they are purchased. No player intervention will be required, other than allocating overall military funds.

3. At player/AI option troops can also try to pillage/requisition supplies from where they are.

4. Because of 2 there will be supply lines that can be attacked, and if troops are surrounded, only local supplies can be utilized.

	20-01-2002 14:35									#92
	Support Apolyton

Hans Delbrucke has a fair bit to say about the logistic problems of large armies in his four volume history of warfare. There is also a book on Alexander the Great's logistics (I am far from home, so I can't give the exact title).

Essentially, if not fed, the troops went home or died, and the army rapidly became the size that local supplies could support. This is what happened to Alexander's army on the way back from India. In that case they died rather than going home.

On an earlier subject of the defensive effect of terrain, offhand I cannot think of a single battle (aside from sieges) in which terrain type had any effect on the battle. Sometimes one side was able to make better use of the terrain (as the Greeks at Marathon, or the Carthaginians at Cannae), but there seems to be no particular advantage to the defender.

Essentially, ancient battles were almost always by agreement - unless both sides wanted a battle it did not take place. They tended to just look for a nice flat piece of open land, and went at it.

There are a very few atypical examples such as Carrhae. But even here the land was flat and open. It was just that the Parthians were able to force a battle.

Moving slightly out of the period, in the 100 Years War, when the French realized that they couldn't beat the English in the field, they proceeded to win the war by attacking supply lines, but avoiding combat. It took a while though.

Cheers

	20-01-2002 14:49									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The defender bonus that id coded stems from a bonus to the scouting phase (15%) which induces a bonus in the manoeuvre phase (around 4%) for a total bonus which exists, but tips fights only if the armies are quite matched.

	20-01-2002 17:23									#94
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Gary Thomas On an earlier subject of the defensive effect of terrain, offhand I cannot think of a single battle (aside from sieges) in which terrain type had any effect on the battle. Sometimes one side was able to make better use of the terrain (as the Greeks at Marathon, or the Carthaginians at Cannae), but there seems to be no particular advantage to the defender.

For pre-modern 'pure' field battles you may well be right. However I bet some of those sieges would have been field battles if one ignored terrain bonuses to defence. And I think a lot of battles were Not fought given a strong defensive position by one side. One example is Alexander's campaigns in Afghanistan. A less resourceful commander would have lost many of those battles by trying to 'charge the hill' rather than sneaking around it or using sieges. In Clash I think this will result in things like the commander looking at his orders and seeing that he shouldn't attack at less than 1.5:1 (effective) odds. Because the enemy are in hills he will elect to go elsewhere rather than attacking the enemy on terrain of their choosing.

The presence of hill positions with field fortifications has, I expect, changed the character of many ancient battles. I expect to find some good stuff in Roman vs. 'barbarian' battles in Gaul and elsewhere. I don't really want to hit the books now for supporting examples, but will at some point.

And terrain effects certainly need to be used IMO when modern weapons become available. I hope you're not implying that the Italian campaign in WWII would have turned out the same way if Italy were a big flat plain.

Although it may not be in there yet, I think a terrain bonus for the tactical defender is Really something we should have. A combinations of playtesting and matching reality can determine the size.

	20-01-2002 21:26									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I think that field defenses can be modeled in 2 ways:
1)There are engineers who can build defence during the manoeuvre phase if they have manoeuvred correctly.
2)The unit has been entrenched for some time, which can be modeled in the same way as the fortify order in civ.
Both ways are cumulative, and can model war in the open.

Now sieges:
Siege warfare should be handled differently, as most sieges ended with one of the armies leaving. Btw, Cesar bet Vercingetorix at Alesia in Gaul because Vercingetorix was besieged in a foritified camp in hills, and he surrendered (while reinforcements were near, but he didn't know it).
I suggest that sieges be handled totally differently from open warfare. The whole point in sieges is to cut supply lines, not to fight. Even in WWI, Verdun was besieged and, although the various forts changed hands several times, the siege failed mainly because a supply road remained between the city and the rest of the country.
Sieges would deal hardly any damage per se, but if we have merchants and loss of units through food loss etc., the defenders (and attackers) would lose their units thru attrition.

	20-01-2002 22:45									#96
	Suffering from ads?

Hey Laurent:

Field defences: I am with 1 and 2 above. But there are also last-minute field defences. As little as a few hours time can make a big difference, especially in gunpowder-weapon fights. These are Much more effective on broken and hilly terrain, and that is one of the origins of the "terrain defence bonus" and why I want to keep it. Fights in the American Civil War were frequently decided by who was on the tactical defensive. Against the firearms of the day, being able to shelter behind things like low stone walls if available gave the defender a critical advantage.

Sieges: I agree sieges are different. And we need to discuss how to handle them. But that wasn't my point...

My point about sieges was that terrain defensive bonuses are one of the things that Lead to sieges a la Vercingetorix. That is sieges happen when the enemy position is too strong to attack without unacceptable losses. If Clash has no terrain defensive bonus my guess is that in the game the Romans would just attack him in his fort rather than besiege. IIRC it was the combination of the fort, on a hill, that led to the siege. But I'm of course guessing

There's a rule of thumb I've read that field battles tend to happen when real powers of the forces almost always are in the range 1:1 to 2:1 odds. Only when things are close are generals willing to risk their precious troops in a battle. If odds are worse, the general with smaller force will attempt to find solid defences and will be besieged rather than fight. Of course this rule of thumb doesn't work after about the Franco-Prussian war because with modern mobilization there is frequently noplace big enough to hide.

	20-01-2002 23:13									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: The defender bonus that id coded stems from a bonus to the scouting phase (15%) which induces a bonus in the manoeuvre phase (around 4%) for a total bonus which exists, but tips fights only if the armies are quite matched.

I like that.

quote: In Clash I think this will result in things like the commander looking at his orders and seeing that he shouldn't attack at less than 1.5:1 (effective) odds. Because the enemy are in hills he will elect to go elsewhere rather than attacking the enemy on terrain of their choosing.

He doesn't have a choice in Clash - if opposing armies are in the same square, there is a battle.

quote: And terrain effects certainly need to be used IMO when modern weapons become available. I hope you're not implying that the Italian campaign in WWII would have turned out the same way if Italy were a big flat plain.

I did say ancient battles.

quote: Although it may not be in there yet, I think a terrain bonus for the tactical defender is Really something we should have. A combinations of playtesting and matching reality can determine the size.

Why, if it isn't realistic?

quote: I think that field defenses can be modeled in 2 ways:

Field defenses were very important in ancient times. The most famous example is the Roman fortified camp. Other nations also fortified their camps, but not so religiously.

quote: But there are also last-minute field defences. As little as a few hours time can make a big difference, especially in gunpowder-weapon fights. These are Much more effective on broken and hilly terrain, and that is one of the origins of the "terrain defence bonus" and why I want to keep it.

I am in the throes of getting the hard-coded terrain data into an xml file (with great originality, I thought I would call it terrain.xml). This is what made me start thinking of defensive bonuses. Essentially, my reasoning went down the track that movement effects are troop type specific, so perhaps defensive bonuses should be. I can see a rifleman getting a defensive bonus from broken ground, but I cannot see cavalry doing so.

Anyway, my proposal is that defensive bonuses be treated the same way as movement, on a per element basis, by troop type. This can then directly affect their defense value. It also fits in with existing code.

It may be necessary to take dispersion (or whatever it is called) and mobility into account.

On a related matter, I strongly feel that there should be a means of giving the player this information, in some detail, so they know why their "fortified" horse archers got cleaned up by inferior skirmishers in a swamp.

Also, I think it should be possible to give a command orders to avoid battle in a square. If both sides do that, there is no battle, they just co-exist, uneasily, in the square.

Cheers

	21-01-2002 00:03									#98
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Anyway, my proposal is that defensive bonuses be treated the same way as movement, on a per element basis, by troop type. This can then directly affect their defense value. It also fits in with existing code.

Actually, this is more or less in the code . I gave a defense bonus to terrains, and this bonus is actually a penalty to attack strength. The penalty is applied twice for non-foot units, to simulate infantry superiority in harsh terrain. Having a per unit type bonus/malus is of course even better, but may be overkill considering the variety of units we have.

quote: last-minute field defences

This applies only if the army is indeed fortifying from my point of view. Just giving fortify order would give a defense bonus, which could be more important depending on terrain type.

quote: He doesn't have a choice in Clash - if opposing armies are in the same square, there is a battle.

There are actually choices, one is morale, which will make the army attempt to flee if outmatched, and the other one, more important, is the AI, which may decide not to attack square X next turn because they are not strong enough.

	21-01-2002 00:34									#99
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Gary Thomas > In Clash I think this will result in things like the commander looking at his orders and seeing that he shouldn't attack at less than 1.5:1 (effective) odds. > He doesn't have a choice in Clash - if opposing armies are in the same square, there is a battle.

No, he doesn't have much of a choice as the code currently works. And there is Laurent's point. But more broadly, a demo 4 feature that hasn't gotten back in that I think we need is the ability to give overall orders on what odds attacks should be aborted. I think this is critical to avoid a lot of military micromanagement. Orders for an attack could include "attack regardless of odds" but I think the default behavior should be that attacks can be aborted if the odds are poor, with poor defined by the player or AI. This would simulate the field commanders orders and best judgement, and I think its very important.

quote: I can see a rifleman getting a defensive bonus from broken ground, but I cannot see cavalry doing so.

Cavalry have this Really Tricky manuver they can do when they need to hold a position, its called Dismounting . I agree bonuses should be different by unit (or element) class, just don't necessarily agree they should be required to be zero. But this may be a distinction best left out of the game.

quote: On a related matter, I strongly feel that there should be a means of giving the player this information, in some detail, so they know why their "fortified" horse archers got cleaned up by inferior skirmishers in a swamp.

Agree. If its a really important consequence of terrain or whatever, it should be in the "Battle Description" the player can read in the newspaper, or whatever DisplayEvents evolves into. We can also provide detailed numerical analysis at some point as a debugging tool, and feature for those who Really want to get into the numbers. Detailed descriptions are key IMO to the player getting into the military system.

quote: Also, I think it should be possible to give a command orders to avoid battle in a square. If both sides do that, there is no battle, they just co-exist, uneasily, in the square.

Yeah, by explicit order, or by the "don't attack unless at good odds" type I discussed above.

	21-01-2002 10:35									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I have been refactoring (sorry, Mark) the movement effect code. In doing so, I have managed to move a lot of the calculation stuff to the setup stage, so each BaseTerrain will point to a TerrainEffect object which will immediately give movement effects, defense bonuses and road, railway and canal building costs for that type of terrain.

The terrain effect data will be read from a terrain.xml file, instead of hard coded.

This is nearly finished. Reading a map from a file will follow shortly after.

Cheers

	21-01-2002 18:51									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I think that a gradual defensive terrain utilization could be achieved. Let's say that all units can always use defensive terrain. Then different units would have a distinct 'dig-in' value.
The early military units ability to dig in would be so crude as to make battle effectively take place on an open plain.
As units advance, so can also their ability to dig-in, making them stronger in defence.
With the modern area rifleman, they would be far outmatching their stone age warriors in utilizing the defensive terrain (and constructing defensive positions, overlapping fields of fire, bunkers etc.).

	21-01-2002 20:09									#102
	Support Apolyton

Hi colorrr, welcome to Clash!

That should work, although even for ancient units I don't think its necessarily minimal. Gary's already mentioned the Roman fortified camps, which are a good example of non-negligible digging in.

Gary: Sounds worthwhile. I figured that was part of the xml refactoring anyway

	21-01-2002 21:02									#103
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Thanks for the welcome mark :-)
I look forward to contribute something to the project.

About the Roman legionares. Well, they would be much more advanced than stone age warriors that would be pratically hopeless in taking advantage of the defensive terrian (No brain, no pain).
So the legionares should be better in taking advantage of the terrain. Did you ever see the 2 part movie about Attila the Hun?
In the end the romans make a stand on a hill, slaughtering the huns as they storm the hill, stopping the hun advance for the winter. On the open the huns would have beaten them.

The fortified camps of the legionares I think should be pictured in another way. These can be built everywhere, on open plains if you like, and if we want to include them in CoC, I think they would be better pictured as the military units being able to build the camp.
Or if they stay in place 1 turn they construct one automatically.
Another simpler way would be to just raise their defense value.

	21-01-2002 21:40									#104
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Hey colorrr:

I look forward to your contributions too! Every extra worker accelerates our progress, and we'll have a real game that much faster.

I think just giving the Roman legions a defense bonus for their fortified camp approach is the way to go. This will tie into their orders. If their orders are "quickest advance" then they wouldn't build the camps, and not get the bonus. Never saw the movie, sounds like a good one!

Last edited by Mark_Everson on 21-01-2002 at 21:59

	21-01-2002 21:59									#105
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: The fortified camps of the legionares I think should be pictured in another way. These can be built everywhere, on open plains if you like, and if we want to include them in CoC, I think they would be better pictured as the military units being able to build the camp. Or if they stay in place 1 turn they construct one automatically. Another simpler way would be to just raise their defense value.

I think the fortify order as in civ represents this quite well.
Additionnally, in the current code, legion units have engineer elements which are used to put up fortifications at the beginning of a fight.

	21-01-2002 22:15									#106
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

In civ III I have the impression the fortity command has no defensive effect. Anyone to confirm this?
I guess what LDiCesare is saying that all units that execute the fortify command gets a defensive bonus?

	21-01-2002 22:52									#107
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

In Civ3 any unit which uses the "Fortify" command gains +25% defense when attacked. Thus having such a command would go quite well in Clash, and also allows TFs who are fortified a way not to get called up when you choose "Next TF". Would make management easier later on, certainly, and you can more easily keep track of who's a garrison and who isn't.

You might want to tinker with a combat calculator for Civ3 to see how it handles it. I have a modified one available online using my customized LWC rules, but it's pretty close to how Civ3 does it. Here it is: http://207.191.20.18/civ3/lwc-civulator.html

I would, however, reccommend that the Fortify command be handld more gradualy, such as a unit gaining +5% per turn they spent Fortified, up to a maximimum of some amount (25% seems a good number). An instant bonus of 25% always seemd to hurky-jurky to me, and I think most people would agree.


Also, my post in the Terrain thread mentions how I believe such terrain defense should be handled, as well as terrain movement, so I'll just link it here rather than re-post it. Makes more sense in context anyway (my post above it also deals with related issues):

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...9769#post709769

	22-01-2002 05:00									#108
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare I think the fortify order as in civ represents this quite well. Additionnally, in the current code, legion units have engineer elements which are used to put up fortifications at the beginning of a fight.

Hi Laurent:

So if you were to sit there for two turns would you get more benefit from your engineers? Presumably in real life you might from another month's work at hardening a position in a square. Can you remind me how the engineer bonus is calculated.

It occurs to me that it would be useful to have a synopsis of what is coded so far, and what is going to be there in the near future. It could go here, or in a new "Military Coding" thread. (At least I don't think we have one of those yet!) Are you game for that? You could probably grab most of it from the emails you have sent us other coders over the last few months... At least I think it would be a useful reference.

	22-01-2002 20:41									#109
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: So if you were to sit there for two turns would you get more benefit from your engineers? Presumably in real life you might from another month's work at hardening a position in a square. Can you remind me how the engineer bonus is calculated.

Not currently. Fortifications are built during the manoeuver phase (you can refer at Krenske's model, but actually the fortification bonus I set depending on the number of engineers rather than rounds of fight). Additionnally, a fortify order can give defense bonus. I doubt that an army without getting extra credit to build fortifications would get any bonus of entrenching / fortifying for more than one month.

quote: It occurs to me that it would be useful to have a synopsis of what is coded so far, and what is going to be there in the near future. It could go here, or in a new "Military Coding" thread

There used to be such a thread but it must be burrowed so deep I'll probably create a new one. I will try to do it cleanly so it will take some time, but I sure will.

	22-01-2002 23:11									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The tech tree will certainly have a "Fortification" technology. It would improve both fixed fortifications and battlefield actions.

	23-01-2002 07:35									#111
	Full PM-box? Change here!

A tech like "tactics" or "army hierarchy" could help an army take maximum advantage of defensive terrain. Because without an organized command structure, there's no way you can build a solid defensive system. These techs would be, as far as I understand the tech model, "level2" techs, with some applications related to them (for example "use of the battlefield radio" or, better yet, "kamikaze messenger pigeons" ).

About a post you made earlier, Mark, I thought extensive numbers would be left out of the game? Or has the design philosophy changed?

	23-01-2002 07:43									#112
	Inflate your Upload Space

Hi Mikael:

I'm not sure which statement about numbers you're referring to, although I admit I didnt look really carefully. My basic position is that some will want them, and some won't. And if we can satisfy both that's best. I dont' consider that a change from what my opinion has been. For the time being we'll be showing a lot of numbers that won't be mandatory later just because it helps understanding of the system and debugging.

Long term I'd like to see an option for a number-free system, and well as an "accountant's dream" system, and a few steps between. As with everything else it'll come down to project resources and the opinions we get.

	29-01-2002 00:28									#113
	Training Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

How should training be handled?
Should we have a training center facility that increases skill of units or build units with minimal training, or both?
Training centers: Can only train units which are in-town or in-civ, and don't have any other thing to do this turn. Could be handled by an order "training" the way we should have an order "fortify". If/when the unit is fully trained, it would ask for a new order.
Minimal training level: Don't allow for units to be built unless they have minimal training. The point is it will be faster to build a unit with training of 5/5 than build it with 0 and then train it, because training is all services and you may have an economy which delivers lots of services but little production, so getting all the services would be as fast as getting all the production (think training with wood poles before the metal spears are made, and learning formations without actual equipment).

	29-01-2002 01:12									#114
	Support Apolyton

Hi LDiCesare,

I think units should only be able to train inside a city (which has the necessary improvement, perhaps?), not just out in the open field.

Also, I like the idea of building better trained troops as a function of time, but I think it should be harder than that. I think there is a limit to how many Navy Seals you can get out of a population no matter how much time is spent training them. Really elite troops just take a special kind of person. Thus, I think the higher the training is put into a unit (or TF), their size shrinks proportionally (or you are limited to fewer of these units - something). Now you have the situation where you could build a lot of cheap untrained units quickly, or spend a long time making fewer elite units...

Blakis

	29-01-2002 01:24									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

This is an interesting question.

I like the idea of barracks producing recruits, an amount per turn depending upon how many barracks build. These recruits can the be used to form new units or replace losses in existing ones.
The new units would be regulars in experience and moral and the player could train them more by placing them in a military academy, or he could use them as they are.

Are we going to picture small elite forces like Seals in the game?

Jorgen

	29-01-2002 07:07									#116
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I thought there was a "military" infrastructure class in the econ model. That would model barracks and the like.

	29-01-2002 07:12									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

And if we follow the model it would be modeled on a province level. So my guess is that training level should be a function of several factors:

- amount of money spent on mil. infra combined with time.

- techs. Not really techs, rather doctrines such as "nationalism" or "conscription" or whatever.

- culture attributes. The more agressive and militaristic cultures should be able to produce elite units easier than the others (Sparta, Prussia...). For a peaceloving culture that would be almost impossible.

	29-01-2002 07:35									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I think that units should be built with The Minimum necessary amount of training for it to function. But minimum does not mean 0. The minimum amount of training should be different for every unit. It should be relatively high for phalanx and Roman legion units, and also high for modern tank units and such. After that we should handle training separately at some sort of training facility. However, there could certainly be a civ-wide training slider where the player could move the default training level for units between something like 50% of normal and 300% of normal. I agree with Blakis that the combat effectiveness you get out of training should be on a nonlinear scale (diminishing returns).

I have always thought it would be useful to have two different scales for units, one for training, and one for actual experience. Both would give diminishing returns as the inputs increase. But the attractive part of having two of them, is that lots of training with no experience only gets you so far, and vice versa. It is only with lots of training and lots of experience that you can get a really elite unit. However, this may be too complicated for the game...

I'm not sure I like the idea of local training facilities, since it is a potential source of micromanagement. At this point I'm thinking that may be just doing the whole thing at the civ level would be adequate. But I need to think on that a little more.

As for small elite forces, personally I think that's too detailed. But one could have an elite element in an otherwise normally-trained unit that could give it some extra punch. I do agree with the basic point that you can't have All elite units kinda by definition . But I'm not sure about a good way to handle that. IMO we should wait until things are further along before we worry too much about that.

Colorrr, I don't see why barracks should produce recruits. The recruits are there in the population anyway. Maybe its just a language issue. I would phrase it that training infrastructure takes recruits and turns them into trained soldiers, though at a cost.

Mikael, there may be military infra, just haven't gotten that far yet... for now all the infra is at the square level, although that may turn out to be impractical later on. I'm not sure I see how nationalism affects needed training. The nationalistic zeal of the troops doesn't go that far on the battlefield if they're incompetent. I agree there should be cultural tie-ins, but that's another one that should wait until everyone has seen what is in the govt/social model and played with it in demo 7!

	29-01-2002 14:03									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I would like to signal the beginning of another of my "let's do it differently" efforts.

My personal preference is that elements should be available to the player who wants to manipulate them. Also, I believe the size of an element should be determined by the number of men in it, which should be a variable in the element. I also think that the player should be able to set these sizes, and arrange the units in the way that they prefer, rather than having them given in a fixed form.

I have two thrusts for this preference.

One is that the course of the Pacific war was determined by the Japanese SNLF (Special Naval Landing Force) which were element sized, not unit sized. It is impossible to replicate the course of that war with the present Clash military model.

The other is that the present model precludes a player making some of the significant changes that have affected military history. The Marian reforms of the Roman army, for example, would have to be presented externally under the present model ("OK, now you are able to build a manipular legion"). I like the idea of players being able to experiment with different organizational patterns (or not, if they don't wan to).

I certainly don't like the way in which units are currently constrained to 10 arbitrary elements completely outside the player's control.

I don't feel that Seals or Commandos have ever had any significant effect on military history, so while they could be built under this system, they would be ineffective at the strategic level. On the other hand, the SNLFs were effective at the strategic level.

Cheers

	29-01-2002 14:49									#120
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Training:
I will build units with 0 training and hopefully have some infrastructure so that units where there is military infra will be able to train. I would like a slider to say how much I want my troops trained. I bet coding that is still quite far so I won't elaborate now.
As for diminishing returns, it's easy to have. It is also easy to put experience in the code at the same level as training except gained differently, (even though I don't like it much).

Gary:
What you want is basically a Unit workshop.
This has been discussed and not decided upon I think. Mainly, the idea is to allow various organization changes based on techs. If you want reorganizing elements in/between existing units, it is a bit more complicated but just (:rolleyes in the code, not in the model itself. Units are a benefit if you don't want to merge together all the elements behind everytime. They also give value to organizational warfare techs.
Also,
Units are not limited to any size. You can have 1-element units, although they may be quite weak if fighting alone against big units.
I think most ships will need 1-element units, or fewer than 10, since 10 war ships was already a big flotilla as far as I know.