Below I've appended the Introduction. There are no details in the intro, it just sketches out the system as it stands. Please go to the link for the whole story with tables of information and many more details.

Let me know what you think, good or bad...

-Mark

Proposed Clash Combat System

We're trying to bring to Clash a more realistic combat system than what
is available today civ-type games.  However, clearly the realism needs
to be balanced with playability.  I'm putting this up here now so
that people can look at it and criticize the general system, or certain
elements in it.  I don't think that the actual decisions the player
has to make will turn out to be very complicated in this system. 
Even though the system is complicated, the decisions should be relatively
simple.  I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on that issue. 
There are also a lot of sub-areas of the system.  If it is felt that
the whole system is too complex, various of these can be simplified or
eliminated from the system.

This piece of my proposed system will be heavy on combat, and not give
too many details about strategic issues.  My thoughts on those things
will have to follow shortly.  First, I'll give an overview of the
general system including the strategic elements, and then focus in on some
high-level specifics for the combat system.

The system features the following elements:

• 
  Simultaneous Movement
• 
  Army Groups
• 
  Military Power Levels that give the right combat Power for units of various
  ages
• 
  Combined Arms Effects
• 
  Reasonable Combat Outcomes
• 
  More Strategic combat system, with a distinction between strategic and
  combat movement rates
• 
  Effects Of Supply
• 
  mobilization and demobilization effects
• 
  Good AI
• 
  Football-Play Type Simplified Interface for those who don't want to micro-manage
  combat

An Army Group (name and writeup by Andrew W.) is a collection
of units, built individually and combined into one force.  They would
have a strategic movement speed of the slowest unit, and an overall strength
rating, that takes into effect the combined arms capabilities of the units.
(Ie cavalry gives you a mobility bonus, artillery gives range weapon bonuses,
and bonuses against defenses, bombers might ignore ground defenses and
so on.) Individual units can be removed from the group and added at will. 
For example a civ might have Army Group 1 with the following units.

2 x Cavalry

4 x Phalanx

3 X Skirmishers

An Army Group with only 1 or 2 types of units would be somewhat limited
from a "combined arms" standpoint as some units are more effective against
some, and weaker against others. Diversity is generally needed to make
a successful Army Group.  This concept will lead to more realistic
handling of armies, and speed up game play, since you don't have to move
dozens of units individually.  Enemy Army Groups could only be spotted
if they are adjacent to one of your AGs or squares, or by scouting (spies,
planes, satellites etc).  The contents of the AGs can only be found
out during battles or by spies (though sometimes they may get it wrong...)
If AGs meet while they are moving, and depending upon their orders, they
would battle.  After the battle concluded, they may be able to continue
their projected movement.  During and after combat, individual units
within the AG will take damage and/or give ground based on their individual
roles in the combat.  (And of course with a heavy random element). 
For instance in Napoleonic warfare troops that give a "shock attack" advantage
to the army would tend to be heavily damaged in "even" battles.  In
even battles that are lost, those shock troops would sustain Very heavy
losses.

Military power as a function of technology is modeled through
the use of a technology levels system.  In addition to having a combat
strength, each unit has a technology level associated with it.  (Perhaps
this will be split into offensive and defensive technology levels, as discussed
later)  When the technology levels of the combatants differ, they're
effective power per individual diverges exponentially.  Specific examples
will be cited later.  To illustrate the point, Napoleonic infantry
(with muskets) are about 28 times as effective as a similar number men
in, say, an ancient phalanx formation.  However, the civ experiencing
the humiliating defeats of its phalanx-based military would IMO be stimulated
to change the structure of its combat units.  After repeatedly fighting,
and getting demolished by, Napoleonic infantry they'd change their fighting
style so that they were much less of an easy target for the muskets. 
(They'd probably lose the pikes too, since such long pikes are virtually
useless unless the unit is in tight formation.)  In this way the ancient-technology
army could be using a much better "defensive" technology while still using
ancient hand-to-hand weapons.  The ancient civ would still be at a
disadvantage, but its new tactics will have bought it significant advantage
with respect to its previous position in combat.  Using novel approaches
to combat, the ancient troops might eventually have only a disadvantage
of about a factor of two.

Almost as important as the technological level of the armies is their
level of training, morale, operational support, leadership, cultural value
placed on the military, and other factors.  I can't say for sure at
the moment how many of these we will model, but we will certainly include
an overall combat effectiveness value (CEV) for each civ.  I have
taken this particular term from Dupuy.  Its sums up all the myriad
factors that contribute to in army's success.  Historically, certain
armies have had success far beyond that expected given their manpower and
weapons systems.  CEV is a way to account for these effects. 
The CEV will act as a multiplier of the military power of a given unit,
either increasing or decreasing it from its "expected" value.  This
CEV will not be constant for a civ, but will change over time due to both
player actions, and factors beyond his or her control.  When a new
weapons technology is used, the CEV with it will be significantly worse
than before.  As the generals use the new technology, and find its
strengths and limitations in battle, the CEV will improve.  New technologies
and cultural improvements such as writing, or the telegraph can also positively
influenced a civ's CEV.

After technology differences, another important feature is the use of
combined
arms effects, since the most successful armies are often the most flexible. 
An Army composed of infantry, mobile units (horsemen, or tanks), ranged
weapons (from bows to artillery), and airpower and seapower if available,
is stronger and more flexible than the sum of its parts. For instance,
mobile unit effects are usually devastating on an open battlefield, whereas
the mobile units are almost useless on extremely rough terrain.  Also,
a significant superiority in the power of mobile, ranged attack, and air
forces will give disproportionate advantage to the side that has such an
advantage.  I have a simple system sketched out to handle these effects,
although it probably needs refinement.  In addition to combined arms
effects there will be the usual sort of bonuses for the presence of fortifications,
armies dug in, terrain, etc.

The system should generate reasonable combat outcomes in terms
of casualties and territory taken.  The character of a combat, and
its outcome, will depend on the missions of the armies involved as well
as their strengths. Armies will have  missions determined by the player
or AI.  For instance, the mission on a given front might be to "destroy
enemy army" or take X strategic city/territory, or destroy infrastructure,
or even "make a pain of yourselves, till they buy us off".  Defensive
orders might be: defend at all costs, roll-back in order with a scorched
earth policy, or 'get the H out of there'.  Depending on the missions
of the two armies and their relative forces, more or less casualties will
be sustained by each side, and ground may or may not be taken.  Since
this is a strategic game, I am inclined to make little effort to model
individual battles.  The outcome in a single square might consist
of one or a few sharp battles, or a continuous campaign. In order to produce
a little more variety in the battle outcomes we might break down the contest
in a square into say three phases.  This would allow for better modeling
of morale and other effects.  If the first phase were a clear-cut
victory, the defeated side would try to retreat to avoid annihilation,
and another battle might or might not be fought.  The player IMO,
should only see the outcome in terms of ground gained or lost and casualties
sustained. However, the player should be able to get a description of the
battle and what went right or wrong after the fact.  Since societal
factors will actually influenced the success of armies in Clash the player
may actually be able to do something with the detailed information of one
went on in a particular battle. Casualties will typically be of order 25%,
but vary by a great amount depending on the specifics of the battle. 
Battle will generally not be "to the death".  Frequently a defeated
unit will retreat.  Only if the attacker has a sufficiently dense
net around the unit will a defeat in combat be ultimately fatal.

I think civ-type games can use a more strategic combat system. 
The use of Army groups instead of large numbers of individual units will
help significantly in this regard.  For the case of ancient armies,
even in a micro-management mode, the player will have to move very few
"counters".  Modern armies will be significantly larger, and more
difficult to micro-manage than ancient ones, but still should be smaller
in the number of counters than the equivalent in other games in the genre. 
Because we are including the economic effects of keeping an army fully
mobilized, the decisions of the level of mobilization of forces will be
an important strategic one for the player.  A relatively smaller standing
army will have beneficial effects for the civ's economy, but will leave
the civ more vulnerable to a rapid attack.  Also, the system will
make a distinction between movement in and out of combat.  Movement
across safe territory will be about three times as rapid as movement in
combat circumstances.  Unopposed movement in enemy or contested territory
will be about twice as fast as combat movement.  These specific numbers
may change due to current suggestions or play testing, but I think the
concept is very valid.  (Thanks to team members for this suggestion.)

The necessity to supply military units with provisions and ammunition
plays a very large part in their capabilities.  I think we can actually
handle supply in Clash without significantly hassling the player. 
The basic idea is to use dedicated merchants (already need to be coded
anyway) to supply the troops.  All the player need do is say how much
money they're willing to spend to supply x front.  The merchant/supply
manager does the rest.  You would build essentially a special class
of merchant that would try to purchase goods from the surrounding area
(or home, if transportation is good enough). This supply unit would travel
with large armies and provide feedback to the army commander about whether
(and at what price) it would be able to supply the army if it went to spot
X. Units that were not fully supplied would fight at reduced effectiveness,
or have the need to forrage for supplies, reducing movement.  Mongol
Horsemen could probably forrage fairly effectively, modern armored divisions
hardly at all. Using a merchant that goes out and buys supplies for you
has the advantage that the player doesn't have to orchestrate the supply
itself, but only decide if the price of supply is worth it.  A bonus
of this supply system is that supply lines can be attacked.  This
allows proper modeling of a modern envelopment battle, one of the coolest
martial activities known to man ;-).  In addition the supply system
would give a lot of correct flavor in terms of Where large armies could
go historically, with little loss in smoothness of gameplay.

Mobilization and demobilization effects aren't completely thought
out yet, but I think we need them.  One thing games in the genre tend
to miss is the enormous cost of waging war.  Demobilization of most
of a civs troops when the civ isn't at war is a natural response to this. 
Active units should get paid in money at probably something like 1/2 the
average PCI (per capita income) for the civ.  Mercenaries should get
paid a lot, maybe twice the PCI.  Exactly how much mercenaries get
paid will probably depend on the market for troops.  Non-mercenary
units can be put on reserve status.  The people in the unit will be
added to the local economy wherever they are demobilized.  Reserves'
skill levels will decline rapidly unless trained.  Training would
cost money, something like 1/5 of the salary active units draw.  Reserves
could be mobilized anytime.  On the turn they are mobilized, they
would just sit in the square where they were de-mobilized, but can defend.

Engineering effects on combined arms.... V IMPORTANT !!!

In the modern day and age, the Engineers are the most taxed army corps. Assault Engineers were the first to be amphibiously landed in the Gulf War (to clear minefields + destroy defenses)....

Anything more than a basic fortification needs heavy engineering construction units, and even when only simple trench-digging or sandbagging is required, the look on a tired infantryman's face when the bulldozers turn up is one of immense relief.

Without engineers, infantry units must exhaust themselves after each march by digging themselves in. A bulldozer can cut the time required from hours to minutes, and allows the infantry time to recuperate.

Even in medieval times, 'sappers' were used to tunnel under castle walls in an attempt to undermine the foundations. They were also trained in construction of barricades and booby traps etc.

Indeed the word 'sapper' is derived from the verb 'sap' which means 'to dig'.

The main engineering functions are:

construction + supply (accomodation, fuel pipes, digging water wells etc.)

mobility (mine-clearing, bomb-diffusion, overcoming obstacles e.g. bridge building)

counter-mobility (mines, booby traps, demolitions etc)

attack (destruction of defenses, constructing 'improved firing positions' for ranged units and heavy guns etc.)

defense (fortifications, especially for armoured formations)

Effects on gameplay:

'Engineering Superiority'

- increases friendly mobility in difficult terrain

- decreases enemy mobility

- adds a friendly defensive bonus

- decreases enemy defensive bonus

- increases strength of ranged units

- increases speed of fortification building

- increases construction of more complex fortifications (if different levels of fortification will be modelled)

The 'Engineering Superiority' effects should be calculated before mobile or ranged superiority....

Jim

I think that everyone is Always trying to surprise everyone else. I'm not sure how to model that in a strategic system. The stand-in is the general competence of the armies involved. You can be fairly sure that the Mongols will achieve some level of tactical surprise in most battles they fight against first-time foes. That would be handled with a large CEV. Of course there will be Strategic surprises, like the enemy punching thru your line in a weak spot...

I think surprise of the type you're thinking about would belong in the tactical combat resolution piece that we may do. In that case I can clearly see hiding those extra cavalry behind those trees so they might have the fortune to hit the unsuspecting attacker in the flank or rear.

Jim:

You make a good case. And you made it more palatable by proposing exactly the game mechanisms to handle it . Can you stick some crude numbers on the particular areas you cite for different periods of history? We'll of course have to cut them in half because of your obvious bias

"Transit attrition":even in the best of cases your units will suffer minor equipment losses during movement.Most of these losses would represent simple straggling or small details left behind for route security duties and would not be permanent: such lost equipment would automatically be assigned for later redistribution, when the given unit hasn't moved in the last turn.These losses could also represent fatigue, and reorganization after long movement.
Obviously such attrition shouldn't occur when using a transport of some kind (rail, boats,...)

_the one that only occurs on tough terrain( swamp, desert, mountains,..)and that actually represents casualties(permanent losses.)Only foot movement would be affected and this would only take place if the concerned troops are too far away from their nation(not enough supplies getting through) and before you reach a certain level of technology.

I assume you've read the posts I made back in the civII forums "suggestions for civ3" regarding concealment and ambushes/pre-emptive strikes. I'll make another plug for them here.
Questions:
What if a AG moves under "safe" conditions but actually gets attacked(via the above ambush or by another means)?

Many times in history enemy groups come within contact range but failed to detect each other(nighttime, low clouds, etc.). It actually bothers me that in civII I always detect the enemy when they come in range. Sometimes in SMAC I don't but I usually do. Anything to address this?

Waypoints are already in the spec. Also synchronized attacks and limited if-then logic (only attack if odds > 2:1)

Scouts and recon are a must, but we don't have a detailed implementation yet.

Mikael:
Hmmm, I think this is too detailed even for me . It seems to me this is a relatively small effect. I would make a similar point about disease though in certain areas. That can be a Big effect.

Theben:

I've read them all, but it doesn't mean I remember them so if you're willing to cut'n'paste I'm willing to look at it.

I think your point about armies missing each other is valid tactically. It should certainly be in the tactical system if / when we do it. Strategically I think its harder to make the case. They could pass each other in movement and not see each other IMO, but should probably know Something is there if they spend time next to each other. I guess that the game definition would be end the turn with unused movement points or something.

Wow, I knew the non-combat rump was big for modern armies, but I hadn't thought that big.

Of course, if engineering and artillery are considered non-combatants.

Only in Vietnam-type environments (especially regarding an 'airborne' brigade) could those corps be considered non-combatants - generally they are by far the most omnipresent of all ground troops.

Artillery has been a HUGE part of any ground army since Napoleonic times, and engineers even longer than that.

Still, for realism purposes, are we going to model all support units, from dentistry to catering to laundry? That should be fun....

For ultimate realism purposes we shouldn't model support units but individual personnel! This is mess cook 2nd class Jones... where would you like to move him?

So what is a more enlightened value for average infantry ratio of non-com vs combattants?

Hrafnkell:

OTOH, the point is valid that throughout the ages an army (used in the term of a moving force) always has a ratio of ca. 3-4 'extras' per fighting man, often more.

...By constantly analyzing requirements and capabilities...the support ratio was reduced from about 45 percent in 1966 to about 40 percent in 1967.

In his autobiography the general repeats himself, adding that "When compared with the 43 percent ratio experienced in World War II and Korea, this decline represented a remarkable achievement." The Vietnam numbers are highly dubious. Most observers say at most one of ten men in Vietnam was a combat trooper...Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Herbert studied "field strength" of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. The 173rd had additional logistical units attached to it. Herbert's study refers to the organic unit:

The 173rd was the largest brigade in Vietnam, with over 10,000 men attached to it. It was, according to the manual, a combat brigade with absolutely no dead weight. But it was a humbug. There were 5 so-called battalions in the Brigade, and not one of them had more than 600 physically present for duty...which means that 7,000 people were assigned to support roles: steakhouses, pizza huts, clubs, headquarters, the General's mess, artillery, engineers, etc...the battalions had their "rear areas" just like the Brigade, with their own steakhouses, their own clubs. Each battalion was composed of five companies, one of them a makeshift outfit responsible for heavy weapons-which left four companies for walking. No company in any battalion in the Brigade had more than 75 men physically present ready to go. Thus, each battalion fielded about 300 combat troopers, except that each battalion assigned one company to guard it's base of operations each day. That left a maximum of 225 men available for the field, or 1,125 on a Brigade basis. And that would have been a good day with everybody out and everybody with a rifle- but everybody didn't carry a rifle. Some toted radios, some stayed back and typed, some worked in company supply, some were "fireflies", the daily heliocopter resupply lifts, and some just plain screwed off. So an average day, the 173rd Airborne Brigade could field approximately 800 men- if all it's battalions were out. In the year I was in the Brigade, all it's battalions were never out.

Assuming four out of five battalions went out on an average day, then the unit fielded roughly 600 men out of 10,000. The 173rd ran at 6 percent combat troop, and 94 percent support troop, not far from the common 10 percent estimate, but far from Westmoreland's figures. Westmoreland's definition is more inclusive than Herbert's focus on combat infantry, but the discrepancy is still considerable. * * *

I'm back. So Westmoreland said that WWII/Korea the ratio of combat vs. support was approx. 57:43, but his numbers are in question. Offically, it's supposed to be about 1:2. Reality made them worse in Vietnam, quite possibly in these other wars as well. Comments?

-Ambushes: Attacker gets +1 firepower, defender STR is halved if ambush successful. Also pre-emptive strikes by defender; same effects as above. Can only be done from attacks launched from concealment (see below) and as random combat effects when nations go to war (below).
-Concealment: A command given to units. Unit becomes concealed at same rate as fortifying. Unit does not get fortifying bonus (it may fortify after concealing) & does not extend ZOC. Difficult to detect like subs. Allow 'flag' to units to be able to spot them (% chance) such as spies, partisans, scouts. Both land & sea units can conceal. Air units may only conceal at a concealed airbase. Settlers/engineers can construct concealed airbases/fortresses in x2 time. Units may not conceal if location known by enemy. Any attack launched from concealment reveals unit until moves to concealable position again. Some units (spies, partisans, explorer) have 'natural' concealment (allow 'flag' for this as well).
-Random Combat Effects: As Henry Lodge said, "No plan survives contact with the enemy." This would be a scale from 1-100 where 1 represents a military disaster for the attacker & 100 is disastrous for the defender (or something like a 3-18 result using 3 groups of 1-6, so that extremes would be much rarer & combined results of 9-12 would be most common). Applied each and every time units engage in combat. Most of the time results fall in the middle, which has no effect on combat. Extreme results are equivalent to ambush effects described above. Other results give a minor bonus to the attacker or defender. This simulates the confusion of warfare and the random occurrences that affect the outcomes of many battles (bad weather, misinformation). Allow a toggle at game start to turn this effect on or off.

Armor, Engineers and Artillery were rendered extremely difficult to use because of the terrain - their heavy equipment couldn't be transported effectively. Most bombardment was by air or sea.

And of course the 1-year 'tour of duty' was an administrative nightmare....

The only 'fair' conventional war in recent Western history which hasn't involved either a massive advantage to one side or ridiculous terrain constraints, must be Korea, so although I don't have any data available, I'd be prepared to accept (reasonably unbiased) figures from that war as gospel for a modern army.

And by army, I mean as oppposed to navy or air force, since those arms have vastly different figures.

I agree that most 'engineering support' troops such as radar ops, signals, maintenance men etc. should be considered non-com but these are a recent phenomenon.

The traditional 'military combat engineer' is very much a front-line troop who would be committed to attacks alongside cavalry (or armor) and infantry, and would be expected to perform offensive duties as well as 'digging field toilets' etc....

Modern artillery also includes a large number of LLAD (low-level air defense) troops which are the main reason NATO refuses to bomb at low levels. These guys would also be mixed in with front-line troops and with modern rocket technology, an Apache is dog-meat against a single trooper on foot.

Does anyone have any definite figures for Korea??

Jim

Mark already has the military system pretty much scetch out and IMO it´s very good, here are some thoughts for how to handle Naval and Air forces. Note that this only touches upon how you use them, not how they fight, I imagine this would be handled by Mark´s system.

The basic idea is that naval and air units are grouped together just like army units, naval formations could be called Fleets or Task Forces the Air formation could be called Task Group or something like that. But as the operations of these units are more specialized they can´t IMHO be moved and used in the same way as Armies. Instead I propose that they´d be given Missions to follow. Here is an idea on what missions would be available. For those who know A3R/RS this should be familiar.

Note that those players not interested in going through all this details can either allow the AI to handle things, or set only a very general orders or use a default setting. In any case, this shouldn´t complicate things much, IMHO make them simpler if anything.

Naval:
Naval Units always start each turn in a port Square, except in special cases (see below), they then move out during the turn, but (almost) always return at the end of the turn (after movement).

Move: This covers both basic movement from one port to another but also such things as going on discovery trips. Players simply choose their fleet and the destination square. If they choose a sea square at the edge of the ‘known world’ (to them) they automatically search all the surrounding squares, the size of the area dis(un)covered is based on the types and number of ships used, as well as distance from home port. There should be a slight chance that ships sent discovering could be lost, especially if their low-tech ships.

Raid: I don´t know how the Merchant Fleet will be represented, but imagine it will be done in some arbitary way. In this mission the player aims to weaken/destroy enemies Merchant Fleets. He chooses the fleet involved (remember that all units going on the same mission must all start in the same port) and the enemy state(s) he wants to harass. He doesn´t have to choose a square unless he wants to, the computer will compute the best destination for raiding activity for him.

Transport: In this mission players use fleets to transport army units to a distant port. The player simply chooses the naval and army units involved (they must start in the same square) and the destination port, which must be friendly controlled. The distance between the two ports is irrelevant. If we want we could allow the army units to move after they disembark (possibly before they embark), the amount of movement left would be based on estimated time it took them to be sea transported.

Invade: In this mission players transport army units and unloads them on an enemy beach. This mission is a little bit more restrictive than the Transport mission, all units involved must start in the same square and the distance is limited, to ca. 3 to 5 squares, so you cant invade half across the world. When the naval technology is high enough the fleet can also carry out shore bombardment to soften up the defenders.

Sea supply: I´m not sure this mission is needed because the supply is handled pretty much the (computer controlled) merchants, but I put here so at least we won´t forget about it . Also, even if we do include this mission I think the Naval units themselves wouldn´t actually carry the supplies, but transports not represented, so the mission of the naval units woud be to protect the supply run.

Patrol: In this mission players send the chosen fleet to a sea square where they patrol the nearby seas during the turn. This mission can both be used to defend against raiders/pirates/submarines and to control a vital shipping lane or sea (like the English Channel). Players can choose pretty much any sea square as for a patrol mission, but if it´s far away from its home port it operates at limited capacity. The distance would be based on the technology-level of the ships. Players can also choose how dispersed they want their fleet to act, if they allow it to disperse it can cover more area, but might get a disadvantage in a battle.

Blockade: In this mission players use their chosen fleet to block an enemy port, attacking any ships trying to enter/leave the square. Players should be allowed to keep their blockade intact between turns, although not indefenately (unless the rotate fleets).

Air Units:
Players can group their Air units independantly or make them a part of an army or a fleet (once carriers are available). If they´re a part of an army (or Fleet) they can´t carry out Strategic Attacks mission, otherwise their only limits are to operate close to their parent unit (army or fleet).

Ground/surface support: In this mission the air units are used in close co-operation with Armies/Fleets, attacking enemy units. How this is computed excactly depends on the final version of the military system Mark proposed, probably it´ll simply increase friendly CEV and decrease enemy CEV.

Air cover: Also known as CAP (close air patrol), it provides protection to army and fleet units from air attacks. Any enemy air units trying to attack the Army/Fleet being protected must go through the CAP-ing air units first. Independent Air units can fly Air cover mission over enemy territory, in order to gain air superiority for follow-up bombing raids, etc.

Strike Military Targets: In this mission air units attack facilities that help the enemy conduct war, such as command HQs, communication facilites, bridges, railway-stations, munition facilites, etc. In gameplay terms this would disrupt movement, interception (support from nearby squares) and supply.

Recon: Scouts nearby squares for enemy presence. Can increase movement, lessen the likelihood of enemy surprise attack (and increase chances of a friendly), give positive interception modifiers and (for Naval Air) allow Air units to attack faraway naval units. With high-tech electronic equipment (like in the AWACS) this can also increase the efficiency of friendly air units (especially in air-to-air combat).

First, thanks for starting out on this. I don't have time for a detailed response now, so I'll just state a few quick comments.

Why must ships return to port at the end of a turn? Can you give me your reasoning? Maybe I'd understand better then. I'd had in mind allowing ships to get a realistic range (depending on the age) from a port. They would need to be resupplied (for instance a coaling station) every N turns. N would depend on technology. Ships might need a little indicator on them showing how much time would be needed till resupply. If they didn't make it they would be in limp-back mode with maybe 1/3 combat str and 1/3 movement rate. This is kinda kludgey... Better ideas?

Your mission list is good. You also need escort. Merchant shipping will be handled by (surprise!) merchants. They will take a particular sea path. A naval unit intercepting the path would probably have a chance of "catching" the convoy. Good intelligence could improve this.

Air missions are good too. Actually air support of ground actions works by adding power of air units (and naval) directly into ground unit power.

My idea is to base naval operations on distance from friendly bases. This can be more easily accomplished by letting naval units return to port at the end of each turn. Also, this makes it easier to structure the Missions, especially those who dpend directly on how long they most go, such as the Invasion Mission and the Patrol Mission. By allowing Fleets to stay over-turn at sea it would be complicated to compute these Missions. Note that the Move Mission doesn´t force Fleets back to port (otherwise it would be a silly option :-)), and this also applies on voyages of discovery. My idea (which I forgot to put in with the Move Mission) is that ships in that kind of Missions fight at lesser efficiency, if players want to go out to sea to engage enemy ships they should use the Raid or Patrol Missions. Ships on a Move Mission which stay at sea over-turn are at a risk of attrition/sinking each turn, the chances increasing for each extra turn at sea.

>I'd had in mind allowing ships to get a >realistic range (depending on the age) from >a port. They would need to be resupplied >(for instance a coaling station) every N >turns. N would depend on technology. Ships >might need a little indicator on them >showing how much time would be needed till >resupply. If they didn't make it they would >be in limp-back mode with maybe 1/3 combat >str and 1/3 movement rate. This is kinda >kludgey... Better ideas?

Well, IMO my idea is better, but it doesn´t make your idea invalid, lets just see what people have to say. One of the purposes with my idea was to eliminate the silly ratio between time and distance in f.e. Civ, where a ship can take ages to cross the Atlantic. IMO your idea doesn´t better that.

>Actually air support of ground actions >works by adding power of air units (and >naval) directly into ground unit power.

That is understandable, but IMO a bit unrealistic, research has shown that the actual damage done by air attacks in close-support of ground units is minimal, somewhere in the range of 2-3% at the most. However, the same research show that troops enjoying air support have considerably higher fighting spirit and vice versa. That´s why I thought letting air support affect troops CEV rather than the combat factors would be a little more accurate, but either way is fine by me.

>IMO Any govt should be able to make >strategic attacks. The democracies in WWII >did this extremely effectively.

First, you cannot over estimate the importance of supply and logistics in almost all early-modern armies onwards, and most armies of antiquity. There's a saying that goes something like this: "Amateurs talk tactics, pros talk logistics". (That said, is there really any demand for a game called "Quartermaster!".) Still I often wondered in Civ type games how my little unit was spending all that time wandering around in the middle of a hostile civ's territory. And not just in ancient times, where Hanibal did in fact spend years in Italy, but with an armored unit or something. That just shouldn't happen from the early modern period onwards. So supply lines and availability of supply is of prime importance.

TWO: Mobilization Demobilization and the cost of war.

If you want to have a realistic model of cost of waging war and the effects of mobilization several things seem necessary to me.

A. A realistic model for public sector finance and national borrowing. Almost no nation saves enough pennies to go have a big war. Most civ type games allow for a full treasury to finance things like wars or major building projects. From my readings of history very few nations break open the piggy bank and pay out cash they have been saving. They borrow money, from whomever will lend it. If you want to be really realistic, think about the king of England borrowing money from Italian bankers to fight France in the forteenth century, and so forth.

Most games make debt something no country can afford to have, when most countries can afford at least some borrowing. But heavy wartime borrowing can then demonstrate the historical reality of financial ruin resulting from war, not only from destroyed provinces, but from ruinious debt and devalued money.

(Digression: Will banking and finance be a civ. advancement? That will be great, and on that note, think about dividing advancements in a manner that recognizes the difference between purely intellectual advances and intellectual/infrastructure advances. E.g. Everyone in the world may know about the industrial revolution and how it works, but wouldn't have the infrastructure to implement it, but universal sufferage doesn't require infrastructure (or much of it). Most advances are not a matter of one civ simply not understanding something (as word spreads quickly even in ancient times) but simply not having a government or infrastructure capable of utilizing advances.)

B. Back to mobilization: Ramp up effects. At least in modern times or early modern times, nations go from a low capacity to outfit units to a high one, as industry and production adjusts and increases capacity and efficiency in mobilizing men and outfitting them for war. So it should be that if you start a military build up that in turn one you produce one unit, and so on until the the third turn of the build up when you can produce two (assuming you have manpower and resources) and three the next turn and then four and so on up to a maximimum capacity and mobilization level. This way you can account for something like the weight of US industrial capacity coming to bear on military production in WWII.

C. What kind of army?
The conscript & professional citizen army, paid regularly, commanded by officiers chosen by high command based on ability and carrying standard equipment, wearing a standard uniform, and receiving standard training is a very new invention.

There have been some professional armies in history, and as a rule they have been successful. But it will be interesting to see if we can model the government and military effects of feudal levy armies, their political/economic and military effects on a province and a civ. That is, until you develop a different army structure you might be dependant on your provincial lords to muster troops. What happens to the province when all the nobles and half the men are campaigning and what sort of troops are they and what happens when they knock off for the winter, or to harvest or plant? How much political power do you cede to the nobles to get those armies into the field at all?

Whew, this is a lot to read, so I'll stop, but there are so many ways to make warfare more than just an exercise in buying the best tech and building the biggest forces, as historically it wasn't nearly so easy...

OK, lets give your naval system a try. The thing I was worried about from my reading of your prev post were:
1) a mismatch between sea and land movement rates
2) I think even your ranges for amphibious attacks are too large. Until modern times the effective distance for an amphibious operation was usally a max of 200km from port. Maybe you've already got that in there.
3) "Move" ships that can't reach a port by the end of turn could still carry troups but at a far reduced rate.

Anyway, your model looks generally very good, maybe with a few examples for different time periods it would have clicked more with me...

On air support of ground actions, Yes the air
kill rates are usually low, but there is the effect of reduction of enemy mobility etc. If the air effects were only a few percent No One Would Bother With Air Power So I think you are understating the effectiveness substantially.

Well, IMO the democracies implicitly targeted civilians in the firestorm campaigns, whether they admit it or not. It was total war, where I just think there's not so much of a distinction to be made in the actions of diffenent governments in such a war... Perhaps I'm too cynical.

Xiane:

HI. Supply is indeed in there. A) is already in there. You can borrow from other governments or merchants who have capital. Maybe upper classes too... havent got that one figured out yet.

B) I've thought about before. Its doable, but a pain with individual weapon types, and I'm just not sure its worth modeling. If we aggregated all military production and had that ramp up, maybe that would be doable

C) we're already talking about. there's some on the old BB on this too.

So what does this mean? First every province should not be able to produce the most advance troop types unless that capacity was either inherent as "special feature" of that civ (i.e. all mongols are horse archers) or the capacity has been paid for in some way.

Second, troops should not necessarily "muster" in the region that produced them, or produced the equipment they use. That is, even though boening makes airplanes, USA air formations don't appear in the Pacific Northwest. Maybe production should be a case of capacity to make the unit in question being located in the civ and a military installation "improvement" being present within a certain radius to bring an actual combat unit into being.

D - A bit off topic. In one of the postings on the web site you mention that you did not like it when you could bully civs in civilization that you had little to no chance of actually doing harm to. To further that, could we have a civ that is not bordering another one by land actually check the transport capacity of a civ and its allies to see if they could actually transport troops to them in sufficient quantity to cause a problem? (I guess that is also a question as to how troop transport is to be handled. It bears thinking about, as it is a crucial issue historically.)