A game with a preferrable military model. I think.

Az · February 17, 2003, 07:09

I don't like the combat model in the civ series, and I've thought about a game with a combat model that is much better IMO.

download this game at this page:
http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=456

It's an oldie, so I don't think there should be a problem. the-underdogs removed the copyrighted stuff, I think.

What do you think?

I think that this is a much more correct military model than what we have in civ.

Mark_Everson · February 17, 2003, 07:52

Hi Azazel:

Your link doesn't work. The site doesn't want you to link from outside to their downloads. If you want people to see the info you are talking about you will need to use another approach.

Az · February 17, 2003, 11:54

ermm... ok...I fixed it, I think.

LDiCesare · February 17, 2003, 16:18

Can you describe the model a bit? I don't really want ot download the stuff to see it doesn't work fine on my computer without any idea of what is behind.

DrSpike · February 18, 2003, 04:59

Can you tell us what the game is? Maybe we have already played it.

Az · February 18, 2003, 17:58

why don't you just follow the link? It's just around 2MB. It should work fine if you PC handles DOS games ( not XP , and stuff like that).

The game is an oldie game called "Global Conquest".
I don't think I can get a screenshot. But the model basically works like this:

There are individual units, you set their moves, for example, ordering them to move to a certain point. so does everyone else.
Then, you press the "send" button, and everyone's units move at the same time. There are variations for aircraft and the game lacks roads, artillery, buildable airbases, and of course a sound economical model. Still, I am addicted to it, and I find it a very good game.

I think it would be better if you saw it for yourselves.

DrSpike · February 18, 2003, 18:55

Hmm, I have win2k. I could no doubt get it to work, but it's not worth the effort; I have other games to play.

Mark_Everson · February 18, 2003, 21:33

Originally posted by Azazel
There are individual units, you set their moves, for example, ordering them to move to a certain point. so does everyone else.
Then, you press the "send" button, and everyone's units move at the same time.

This is basically what we use in Clash, although the units can be grouped into task forces for ease of movement. I'd like to hear what you think of our implementation of this basic concept in a civ-type game. You can get the demo by following the link in my sig.

Urban Ranger · February 19, 2003, 05:10

Okay, that's the "simultaneous movement" model. What I have been thinking that is the unit needs to be abolished. It should be replaced by "armies" a la Europa Universalis.

Az · February 19, 2003, 09:36

Urban: It's more than the simultaneous advancement. The aircraft system is great, though there is only one type of aircraft.

Did any of you people actually download it?

Mark_Everson · February 19, 2003, 19:43

Originally posted by Azazel

Did any of you people actually download it?

Hi Azazel:

I didn't. I don't have time to spend several hours looking at an outdated game that may or may not even work on my comp just to ferret out a few things that might apply to a civ-type game.

If you would care to summarize the good points that you are promoting in design I'll certainly look at what you have to say. Just take snippets from the manual if you'd like. I think that goes for several others here too. . .

Az · February 20, 2003, 09:34

a few hours?

basically:
-different units behaving differently in different terrains.
-Unit strength measured in %. (should be upgraded into numbers of personell and equipment )
-All ground and naval units moving simultaneously.
-Aircraft attacking immideately between the turns. ( The same could be done with artillery which is not present in the game )
- A larger resolution of the map ( note, The size a military unit icon is one 9th of the size of the icon of a city. ).

This seems to be about it.
Generally, I would recommend it, without even looking into tips for new civ games.

It's just fun.

Mark_Everson · February 20, 2003, 12:11

Originally posted by Azazel
a few hours?

Perhaps someone with your incisive intellect

can understand the fundamentals of how a particular 4x game works in a few minutes, or even less. For me it takes several hours just to understand basically how it works. Especially with a shoddy description of what I'm supposed to look at, like

I don't like the combat model in the civ series, and I've thought about a game with a combat model that is much better IMO.

download this game at this page. . .

Az · February 20, 2003, 12:14

1)I've described it briefly later.
2)You can download the friggin manual and read it.

All in all, it seems that you're not open and acceptive of new ideas, dear.

LDiCesare · February 20, 2003, 14:52

Azazel, a 2Mb is not "ONLY" for a modem user who got to pay a lot if he takes more time than the net access he has estimated.
I agree with Mark's comments. Did you look at Clash? The model has simultaneous movement and number of persons and a several things you seem to be looking after.
Currently, downloading every quoted game without having a notion of it is not something I'll do either. However I download Dale's game for example because it is recent, I can give feedback to him, and I know his work on CtP2 for example, so I trust it to be worth downloading.
I'll try to check the aricraft model if it is described somewhere.

LDiCesare · February 20, 2003, 15:51

I took half an hour to read the manual. Here is what I understood: It is not very ordered, but well...

The patrol feature looks good, although it is probably more useful in wargames than civgames. Attacking from 2 sides causes bonuses: Right tactically, very hard to manage strategically before the advent of very modern and robust comm systems. So these parts of the model are good for tactical games, not for strategic ones IMO.
Additionnally, units fight at some range, which is good for tactical combat, but may not be so good for strategic combat unless abstracted (make fights in same square take place at varous ranges).

Only defender's terrain taken into account. CtP2's model is better where attacker gets a bonus if they attack from a mountain for instance.

I don't know if units get killed all the time they fight or if they retreat/are wounded at end of fight. Seeing how RTS games handle it, I think wounded units should be a possibility.

Airplane model: Planes are given missions to attack some buddies. If opponent plane is nearby, opponent plane scrambles automatically. All this takes place real-time wise. I quote a bit:
Air Missions With Enemy Air Units Adjacent the Target If your target is on top of or next to an enemy plane, a dogfight ensues. If the opposition's plane is unavailable, your chances are: 25% chance of completing the mission; 40% chance of mission failure; 10% chance of your plane being shot down; and 25% chance that your foes plane is shot down. If the Opposition's plane is available, your chances are: 50% chance of mission failure; 25% chance of your plane being shot down; and 25% your opponents plane is shot down. Air Missions with Enemy Units in the Vicinity If your target is between two and 10 spaces from an enemy plane, the probability of your air mission failing ranges anywhere from 10% to 50%; one third of those failures will end up resulting in a lost plane.
Additionally there is an abstracted air to air combat mission (straight chances of destroying/being destroyed quite like that), kamikaze, paradrops and bombing raids.

Now my opinion on air combat: I don't like the real-time thing if it can cause conflicts with other opponents missions so planes which would miss one another in a simultaneous turn don't but one of them strikes first and the other defends based on the speed of the player. It'd be a good system if the air units had:
1) various capacities (here there seems to be only one fighter with the same stats for all- I may be wrong). For instance paradropping planes are not fighters, etc.
2) simultaneous turn, but before the ground units move. That is, you first plan all your plane moves and ground unit moves, then all plane moves are solved at the same time, and then all ground/sea units moves are solved.

DrSpike · February 20, 2003, 15:59

Edit: Crap, wrong thread: I leave my post for your general amusement.

I would presume CB was eschewed to get us to demo quicker and because the original plan was to sleaze, with maybe one city bigger with HG and another xinning.

Az · February 21, 2003, 06:29

Only defender's terrain taken into account. CtP2's model is better where attacker gets a bonus if they attack from a mountain for instance.

Agreed.

I don't know if units get killed all the time they fight or if they retreat/are wounded at end of fight. Seeing how RTS games handle it, I think wounded units should be a possibility.

They are a possibility, as health is measured in percentage.

[QUOTE]
The patrol feature looks good, although it is probably more useful in wargames than civgames. Attacking from 2 sides causes bonuses: Right tactically, very hard to manage strategically before the advent of very modern and robust comm systems. So these parts of the model are good for tactical games, not for strategic ones IMO
[QUOTE]
It depends on the scale of things. This kinds of operations have been carried on. Besides, the exact timing is not important, the fact that the opponent is attacked from both sides is.

Now my opinion on air combat: I don't like the real-time thing if it can cause conflicts with other opponents missions so planes which would miss one another in a simultaneous turn don't but one of them strikes first and the other defends based on the speed of the player. It'd be a good system if the air units had:
1) various capacities (here there seems to be only one fighter with the same stats for all- I may be wrong). For instance paradropping planes are not fighters, etc.
2) simultaneous turn, but before the ground units move. That is, you first plan all your plane moves and ground unit moves, then all plane moves are solved at the same time, and then all ground/sea units moves are solved.

I think that no.1 would be sufficient, but yes, this model is lacking. I like the prinicple, though.