posted January 19, 2000 20:59

Mark

	posted January 19, 2000 21:14

-Harli

	posted January 19, 2000 21:35

A quick unrelated question. I haven't actually managed to find much on unit creation. In almost all cases it is just a discussion of what units should be included. Does this mean that there is to be no Military Workshop (or whatever we want to call it) or have I just missed that discussion completely?

	posted January 19, 2000 21:38

No, unfortunately it's not there. I think you and me posting simultaneously is probably what killed the thread... I don't know for sure, but it's just a guess. Because I was posting when it bombed. I'm sorry if you lost a lot. If you went on to other things, try going back in your browser and you may be able to recover it. For the future, you might want to go ahead and save all your posts in a word processor before putting them up. That's what I do, and it's saved me several times.

	posted January 19, 2000 22:10

You found very little on a unit workshop because there Is very little. Thanks for trying to find it though. Harli has some thoughts about it, so you when he may want to get together and talk. I'm personally not convinced that a unit workshop is that much of a great idea. The main problem is the graphics. Also, I think that with a wide variety of unit types that can be put together into task forces, the need for individual balanced units is very limited.

	posted January 19, 2000 23:11

- Unit Workshop - This could be a option. For those that really want to develop there own units. If you are worried about too much micro management I do not think it is too much of a worry. As we can allow for incremental upgrades of components. For example you design a rifleman back in ACW days with a standard pack and a MLR. When camouflage material becomes available you get the option of upgrading all rifleman with camouflage uniforms. The same with breech rifles or magazine rifles or auto rifles etc. The user only has to create the first of a type and if a incremental improvement to a component occurs they get the option of auto upgrading at a cost.
Graphically the little map icons are a man with a weapon or a vehicle or a man on a horse etc. A more beautiful representation may be desirable in the actual workshop but we don't require 3-d modelled, animated figures on the map surface. That stuff may be available buried under the TF structure but even then most civ players would probably turn it off.

	posted January 20, 2000 08:16

Yes I think we can do a very good job with the AI. First, I think we can come up with a much better set of rules and what is typical in the genre. The reason I am almost Sure we can do Very well is a dirty little secret I will let you in on. When the Player is fighting someone, they will be spending significant amounts of time thinking and planning. Because the turns are simultaneous the AI can spend this very same time hatching its own plots. When the player isn't fighting, things must be done much more quickly, but it will probably be things that the player can't see anyway .

	posted January 21, 2000 03:44

[This message has been edited by Kull (edited January 21, 2000).]

	posted January 21, 2000 06:55

LOL on your comment...

	posted January 21, 2000 13:19

Of course added variability will be added with naval and air intervention - but still the risk assesment of a naval invasion is much easier with war theaters.
ex. a TF, militia strength in a war theater is able to rush to the defense of any square within that war theatre and within the time frame considered - 1 turn(it all boils down to how you build war theaters, please read again my post on that)
So the AI can easely asses risk of seaborne invasion according to the garrison forces he has available in that war theatre versus naval capability of the foe to deploy an amphibious operation against that war theatre (remember the sneak attack that is so easy to do in most strategy games :-), well the AI can defend against them and can, as well, decide to do them :-))))

	posted January 21, 2000 14:20

I just think the idea is way too abstract. I think most players who are interested in the military aspect of the game will find it so. As a step in the AI, this type of aggregation is already planned. Furthermore, using the AI, you personally will be able to play like this, and let the AI handle the operational aspects if you like. You can see if Harli likes it any better than me...

	posted January 21, 2000 14:54

The part "this aggregation...is already planned" sounds just great. So where is it appropriate to discuss how the AI will do the square agregation... IMO this has to be sound in military terms or the AI won´t be able to make good decisions.