Level of Realism in War

[Seeker]

There have been many suggestions made about improving the realism of warfare in CivIII. They tend to range between the extremes, lets say, between 'the Operational Art of War' and CivII as it is now.

Obviously, Civ is not supposed to be a wargame. But we can all agree that there are things that now exist in Civ that ruin the 'willing suspension of disbelief' in war.

1. 'box-canyon of death' all units dying when the stack is killed.
2. Lack of even primitive, Panzer General-esque, supply rules. This could be handled very simply, give each unit a number for 'supply', which is exhausted by moving and exhausted more by combat. It is replenished each turn that the unit can trace a line to a friendly city. If a unit is unsupplied it slowly loses hit points.
3. Battle to the death. The only result possible in CivII is total victory or total defeat. There should be bombardment like in SMAC, but also forced retreats, surrenders. Units need to have a morale number, which could be influenced by all sorts of things, to govern retreats, surrenders, ect. For example, fanatics might never retreat or surrender, while partisans might be made to retreat easily.
4. Industrial/morale attacks on a city: presently, only the spy can do this. Bombers, battleships, cruise missiles should be the best at this job.

5. My own personal want for realism....unit names!! In 'Empire Deluxe' units were given generic names based on where they were produced, but players could change this name to whatever they want. Maybe I don't want just plain 'rifleman', maybe '1st Royal Guards Rifleman'. In scenarios this would be great, no more anonymous battleship, now you have the Bismarck.

On leaders: although I know they will be included, I don't really know about leaders..

Time: I don't know about the mechanics of this, but time is wierd in combat. It is, for example, impossible to re-enact Alexander the Great within the normal game because it takes 50 years for a horseman to leave Greece...

In conclusion:
Old Civ Rifleman: Att:5 Def: 4 Move: 1 HP: 2 FP: 1
or 5/4/1/2/1
Civ III 303rd Regiment, Rifleman: Att:5 Def: 4 Move: 1 HP: 2 FP: 1 Morale: 3 Supply: 10
or 5/4/1/2/1/3/10

[CornMaster]

Some nice idea's although a little overboard with the naming. I think that's too involved, but I wouldn't have to do it. Although I wouldn't mind cristening the first Nuke, "Death Star"

------------------
"I'm too out of shape for a long fight so I'll have to kill you fast"
"The best meats' in the rump!"
I AM CANADIAN!
CornEmpire Index
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

[Nikolai]

[quote]Originally posted by Seeker on 10-25-2000 04:33 AM
On leaders: although I know they will be included, I don't really know about leaders..[quote]

Can somebody tell me a bit more about leaders - I just don't understand what's the meaning....



------------------
Who am I? What am I? do we need Civ? YES!!

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Supply Lines...ergh... I don't know. I know you say it can be simply implemented, but what you've just stated sounds horribly complicated..

It's already a royal pain in the derriere to keep track of all my units -- so much so that I wind up killing off those that have wandered too far off course. In fact, I generally try to avoid war altogether until I can get the technology to do it as efficiently as possible. Don't really want to send wave after wave of elephants against someone's city wals.

Managing supply lines sounds like a chore that I don't want.

[Dom Pedro II]

I definitely think that the micromanagement on lines of supply is TOO much! Don't get me wrong. I think lines of supply are a MUST, but most armies have quartermasters and such that take care of these things.

I think that LOS should be limited to keeping enemy troops from standing between a city supplying resources, and the unit. For example, there is an army amassed deep inside the borders of an enemy civilization. Suddenly, an enemy unit blocks a direct line of sight between the army and the nearest city. The next turn, the army fights at %50 strength because they cannot get their supplies.

Another way is this, the navy of an enemy surrounds the main port city of your civilization. You import all of your oil from another civilization through that city. You will continue to function until the oil reserve runs out. Then ALL units drop to %50. That is unless you reroute to another port, or find an over-land route.

Another possibility is if the war is on a different continent and the port has been blockaded. Then, even if you have oil being imported on the other continent, the troops have no city to receive support from.

It allows the AI an added means of defending itself. It also makes the navy much more important in the game. The navy has never really had much use in the game, but it has in reality for just this sort of reason. Without military and economy being closely intertwined, the game cannot be realistic and the navy will never be of great importance.

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

Dom Pedro II.... aka Hannibal3

Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889).

[Seeker]

If you ever played Empire Deluxe, the computer gives random names based on the city the unit was built in, you only make up names when you want. This was also in Imperialism 1.

Maybe I made my supply idea more complicated than it seemed to me...Ever play Panzer General? That's essentially what I mean. LOS is not really necessary.

The guy who was wondering about leaders: in the 'letter from Sid' Firaxis said leaders will be in Civ III. I am concerned with this, I mean say Patton shows up to lead a stack when you play the Americans. Is he just going to be there for a few turns? If not, it ruins the 'suspension of disbelief' to have him, say, attacking Saddam in 1990.

[Tim White]

I agree with you totally, except for one thing, supply lines, to much MICROMANAGEMENT!!! Although, I would like to see naming units, especialy for reanacting historical stuff, like instead of Marines, make the US ist div., on omaha beach. and espeically naming ships, like naming a batteship, USS UTAH, it was a ship that went down at Pearl Harbor during WW2.

[Shogun Gunner]

Seeker:

I agree with you that supply lines are necessary for Civ. I also will contend that it would not take any micromanagement or player interaction. This could be done automatically by the game's programming. I believe this could be done in such a way that you could just click your unit to see what the supply status was for the unit. Then it would be a lot of what we do in these forums: figure out all the aspects that contribute to a unit being in supply or not (because I know no one reads the manual. The forums would also expose the cheats, shortcomings and shortcuts which would spawn a laundry list of corrections and patches

It is a basic fact of war that supply and communication are important for victory. In CIV you can send a modern military unit, like an armor unit, to an uninhabited island for 20 turns fighting it's butt off and if you get time between the fights it can power back up to full strength each time. That's ridiculous.

There were a few good comments earlier about the navy having more of an affect on the game if supply was introduced. I especially like the port city blockade idea affecting trade/supply and military readiness.(Dom Pedro's posts). A lot of good suggestions there.

Back to the armor unit on the desert island...It's even more ridiculous if the enemy has a strong navy, you have no navy, and your armor unit is still full power blasting away at everything on the desert island. I could be convinced of an archer unit "living off the land" or a Phalanx in a Trireme raiding local ports and farms for food and other necessary items, but modern armies require a tremendous amount of support, coordination, communication and supply. Not taking that into account distorts one of the most important aspects of the game -- war.

You may not like war in real life, you also may not like the way war in CIV...However, war is the defining principle in human history and, interestingly, also in CIV. I find that Micropose and Sid Meier hit that concept squarely on the head. A further refining of this aspect of the game would improve the game in my opinion.

Edit to fix some incorrect spelling
[This message has been edited by Shogun Gunner (edited October 27, 2000).]

[Biddles]

Supply lines are a must. The easiest way to win a war is to destroy the supply lines of the enemy army. This topic has been discussed to the death and most people agree that some form of supply is neccesary.

The idea of naming individual units is an idea I like. It wouldn't be neccesary to name the unit but an option. Just think, your military advisor tells you "Sir, 3 commando brigade and 1st royal marines have landed on the shores of france!"


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[Claudius]

I posted this thought in the wrong sring a minute ago but, Why not jsu make it so that units outside bases (Cities, Airfields, Forts) cost 1 gold per turn

[Stuff2]

I have a suggestion.

Unit retreit - The unsuccessful fight forces the unit one step back (follow the supply line to the nearest frindly city)
Unit surrendering - The unit get captured bye the enemy
creating war-prisoners (that can be fed or killed) that can be used in negotiations.
Unit escape - Units escapes from war prison.

[Dom Pedro II]

Actually, there has been some mention of energy being based on the oil and coal you pull out of the ground or nuclear energy created, and that you need this energy to supply mechanized units.
[This message has been edited by Dom Pedro II (edited October 28, 2000).]

[chrispie]

Um okay, I like the idea of supply lines, but the sheer complexity of it I think could spoil a game.

Maybe, if Civ3 incorporates energy (which I think it should), then a unit in enemy territory could require extra energy to maintain. Energy in my eyes comes from the people, and exists throughtout the game...not just in the modern era...there is just more of it in modern times. But that's a different thread .

Maybe if a unit can't trace a path to a friendly city, it can't self-repair, or even loses health each turn. That is, if energy isn't used. But then, trace a path...what if your on the other side of the planet, how do you trace a path then? And when you capture enemy cities, suddenly you have all the supplies you need? I wouldn't imagine so.

On the idea of naming units, yeah it's a cool idea, I could have HMS Manchester bombarding the enemy coast.
[This message has been edited by chrispie (edited October 28, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

You should be able to flee with your units and also do a 'feint' attack
and come back in the middle of the attack to increase surprise.

[jdlessl]

The upside is that supply lines have virtually no effect on combat until about 14-1500ad. And until the 1850's it was limited almost entirely to food rations. Until then, units got food from the countryside and nearby towns. This obviously makes trekking through a desert or frozen wasteland very difficult. But there are real limits as to how many troops you can cram into a certain area without them stripping the land bare. How much food you can get the land is generally directly proportional to the density of its population and agricultural sophistication. More than one campaign has been decided purely on the basics of logistics. It applies double to seiges.

How about this: The hitpoints of a unit are derived from the aspects of that unit. In other words, 100% of a militia unit is for the existence of troops. They can fashion weapons and collect food from most any environment. A Roman Legion, on the other hand, is much more dependent on the equipment it carries around (swords, shields, uniform). Thus maybe a third of its hitpoints represent how well it's equipped.

Now, say one of each of these units were garrisoned in a friendly city that had no way of using iron (assuming a commodities based system here). Assume also they were just in combat and taken down to 20% remaining hitpoints. Well, the militia can repair itself to normal anywhere it finds new recruits and ample food. The legion on the other hand depends on the availability of weapons, so even if recruits and food is available, it can only self-repair to 76% (70% for personnel, 6% for the equipment it had left).

Modern warfare is even more equipment dependent. maybe 10% of an armored unit's hp would represent people. The remaining 90% is split between vehicles, fuel, electronics, and ammo. It is absolutely dependent on being within a transportable distance from a friendly city with the necessary supplies.

For an actual supply line, the unit has to be within a certain distance from a supplying city. The unit automatically chooses to supply from the nearest city with what it needs, but you could override and supply it from a different city. There is real danger here. As the unit gets further away, the amount of food reaching the unit gets lower and lower. It is being eaten up by the guys doing the transporting and guarding the transports (obviously this is a problem that applies only to food). Past a certain point, no food at all would reach the unit and he'd have to depend on what he could gather from the land. If there isn't enough, the hp's start going down. Thus, putting down roads and railroads as you invade enemy territory is extremely helpful since it makes sending supplies easier. Similarly for employing a scorched earth policy: destroy your own outlying roads improvements, thus slowing the oncoming enemy.

I realize that this is a _very_ complicated model, but I don't think it would actually require much additional micromanagement. Just make sure you err on the side of caution and keep an adequate supply of whichever commodities your invading army needs and be careful about where you send the troops: if you are supplying them well, they can't go too far away. If they are living off the land, they can't be packed too densely nor go through overly impoverished or desolate lands without hurting badly.

DarkCloud: that's a tactical op and really outside of the scope of a civ game. I suppose you could put tactics on the tech tree that give attack/defensive bonuses, but historically, military commanders seem to keep forgetting some of the basic ones...

--
Jared Lessl