Announcement

**Harlikwin** · January 19, 2000, 22:14

Mark, Is my last post on there? I commneted about Henriqes stuff as well as Kerenske's "real time" model

-Harli

**Krenske** · January 19, 2000, 22:35

Eegads!! For a moment I thought you were going to ask us to type everything in again.

This would be a good point to break up the discussion and thread into several threads. My suggestion would be "A strategic Model", The Combat Model" and Possibly a "Unit Creation Model".

Breaking the strategic model off from the combat model could keep the discussions more focussed. (Mind you I wander quite a lot)

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?

**Mark_Everson** · January 19, 2000, 22:38

Harli:

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.

**Mark_Everson** · January 19, 2000, 23:10

Krenske:

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.

**Krenske** · January 20, 2000, 00:11

Mark
- I agree most of what I have posted is probably in a different form somewhere.

- 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.

**Kull** · January 20, 2000, 00:59

Tsk, tsk.....

**Mark_Everson** · January 20, 2000, 09:16

Just to further the discussion a bit until we get the new threads set up, here is my final post to the military thread, that never quite made it...

Krenske:

On some further deliberation I think that the only significant differences between our proposals are two moderately important factors. The one you are pushing has the defect IMO of not giving the player quite enough chances to make critical decisions. The defect of the one I am pushing, is that the economy and the military can move at a different timescale. So the differences are probably not quite as large as I was thinking of them as. I guess the difference in timescales doesn't bother me quite as much, because with 6000 years of history to cover there is clearly going to need to be cheating on the timescales anyway. Nobody is going to want to play out 10,000 plus turns (well most won't want to anyway).

Anyway, it occurred to me that with these differences being relatively small, that if we make the code versatile enough we can test out both alternatives when we get to that point! And it's pretty much versatility I think we need anyway to implement scenarios and such...

Henrique:

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 .

**Kull** · January 21, 2000, 04:44

The "Military/Combat II" Thread lives again! It's also available as a link from the Military Model and the Web Site "News" section.

Next time you guys hose up a thread, try to make it one with only 12 postings!

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

**Mark_Everson** · January 21, 2000, 07:55

Kull:

Thanks Again!

LOL on your comment...

**Henrique Duarte** · January 21, 2000, 14:19

Mark
Here goes the post I stuck on the diplomacy thread by mistake, pherhaps it stays better here than on the AI thread (this has to be reasonable in military terms to have a chance in the AI).

I know it will sound like I am trying to push the war theaters idea (well to be honest I am :-).
I think that the 1st step in evaluating the military situation of the civ in relation to other civs could be made so much easier if you had reasonable "blocks" to deal with. reasonable in military terms.
If for each civ the AI has war theaters established for friendly and enemy territory, the risk opportunity assement can be easely made according to force disposition, terrain factors, strategic gains (in resource/population center/productuin objective) in each war theatre. Note that based on the factors that each war theater is built with, the forces of each war theater are able to support/reinforce friendly neighbouring war theaters as well as invade enemy neighbouring war theaters (because they are all attainable objectives in 1 turn - in theory :-))

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 :-))))

**Mark_Everson** · January 21, 2000, 15:20

Henrique:

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...

**Henrique Duarte** · January 21, 2000, 15:54

Mark

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.

Announcement

Military thread lost, but I have a backup :-)

Military thread lost, but I have a backup :-)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment