Military Model III

[Richard Bruns]

F_Smith might have rendered this conflict obsolete. If the architecture is as flexible as advertised, we should be able to have both systems without any problem, So we can test this later.

My main concern is the fact that the effectiveness of the military is divided by 60, due to the timescale disparity. I fear that this will hurt the game a lot. But only time will tell.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Richard!

Its not a code flexiblity issue IMO, it just takes a lot of time coding for each complex option, esp to do things like rejigger the AI so it understands how to work with the alternative systems. But anyway we'll see at some point in the future.

On the factor 60 problems, just remember its a game . Things will not perfectly match the real world. If our approach feels Really wrong, then we'll change it, either by changing the turn increments or something more serious. Till then lets just agree to disagree .

[Mark_Everson]

Richard:

I had one more thought on the factor-60 slowdown for military issue. In 600 years you get about 10 years of solid fighting time... That's enough to war back and forth over the entirety of Europe about 5 times. Seems enough for me Again, I don't claim the details will be right, but I think the flavor will be.

[Richard Bruns]

We'll just have to wait and see, I guess.

[Mark_Everson]

This came up in another thread, and I thought I'd cross-post it here because its relevant.

Ammunition: I don't think individual ammo types is a good idea at all. At least my take was if a unit is in supply and enough manufactured goods get to it, then its assumed it is supplied with ammo of whatever type it needs. Otherwise you get into a micromanagement nightmare IMO. So it is assumed that the medieval society produces arrows, and the modern one produces cartridges and whatever else is necessary. Only if a unit is cut off do we dock its effectiveness due to lack of ammo. For slingers the penalty would be slight, for modern units it could get quite severe if the out-of-supply lasts too long.

[Lord God Jinnai]

I agree here, with one more exception, that is, if the resources are available. Its hard to make arrows without wood. You can make them from other substances such as metal, but they aren't as effective (do to the weight). So as long as supply is available in the immediate area or supplied it, there should be no penalty, without such, the effectiveness should go down either slowly with rationing or continue for a little bit with no penalty then be worthless if there was no rationing.

[LDiCesare]

Does anyone know if an army ever stopped fighting due to lack of ammo (vs. lack of food or lots of casualties)?
I believe ammo is usually cheaper (except maybe for artillery) and smaller, and keeps longer than food. FE sieges in the middle-ages were mainly fought to starve the castle inhabitants, not to deprieve them from arrows/bolts. Thus I believe the first effect of having lines cut would be starvation, which would lower the morale and health. Ammo effects would come later, and by the time the army may have disbanded. I think ammo lack could be tackled at tactical level, while food would be at strategic level.

[Mark_Everson]

Laurent:

What you say was certainly true of ancient and medieval sieges, but I think in the modern world it is frequently the other way around. IMO ammunition, gasoline, etc. are more critical in most cases for fighting effectiveness than food. You of course need both, but I think there is less food than other stuff that a modern army needs. And food is usually easier to get locally than the right type of shells!

A major limitation of modern campaigns is avoiding outrunning supply lines, and I have read that 2/3 or more of supplies for a unit in combat are typically non-food items. Just think how much weight in bullets one machinegun can shoot. Much more weight than the guy operating it could eat in a comparable time period . But I'm not an expert, hopefully someone who really knows their stuff can comment!

[Lord God Jinnai]

I think that also depends on where you are in earlier periods. If you have a spring or river under your castle your water problem is mostly solved (and a river helps with saniation problems, though is also a way to enter there ecampment more easily if nothing's done). That last sentance brings me to another point, often the sanitary conditions were the reason seiges worked also, not starvation.

[Richard Bruns]

Rommel's Afrika Corps was crippled due to lack of supplies. They had plenty of food and were generally healthy, but they were sorely lacking in gasoline, spare parts, and ammo. They got more gas by capturung enemy supplies (something that should be included in the game) than they got from Germany. The reason was that the supply lines were severely restricted by British naval forces in the Med, so everything had to be airlifted in.

Ammo is simply one element of the supply needs of a modern army. A low tech army can forage, but higher tech means more need for special manufactured supplies that need materials like steel and oil.

[LDiCesare]

What happens when two armies of the same civ come into a square with an opponent, but the friendly armies do not have the same general? Supposing they will fight, there should be some disadvantage at fighting separately. Will they group together or should they behave independently if, say, their leaders are less than friendly one towards the other?

[Mark_Everson]

Personally I would have the two armies from the same side just automatically unify with perhaps a slight reduction in effective strength. If generals personalities make a big difference then it will be a source of micromanagement. Involving the player actively in the micromangement of personalities of the generals seems like something that would frustrate 95% of our players... We can always look at this again when the game is much further along.

[Mark_Everson]

Since this thread is very near the 150 post limit, I have taken the opportunity of starting a new thread for continuing military model discussions here.

This thread is officially closed...