"Unit Workshop" Module List

[Marcel I]

Youngsun, very good work but I got some questions:

How will the assignment of men to your units work?
Will there be effects in drafting a large army to your (food)production?
IMO a unit should be composed of men and arms (I guess that’s what you mean too). You could easily define the number of men needed for certain types of units 3000 for renaissance infantry units for instance, an artillery unit 300 etc. Equipment should be fitted to these numbers. In that way I guess there won’t be much problems with one man units as mentioned in the thread.
The effect of creating a relatively large army should IMO be felt in your (food)production ability. After all your productive workforce gets smaller if your people are occupied in the military. I think you should create a national pool of potential conscripts, where you could move a sliderbar as to choose a percentage of your people for use in the military. In that way your population could drop rapidly when sustaining heavy losses in a war. Maybe gameplay would become too complex but to me it seems a realistic idea.



------------------
Adopt, Adapt and Improve

[Evil Capitalist]

IIRC the blunderbus is like a shotgun for a bygone era. It certainly wouldn't be a rifle- since they needed good care and were slow to reload. I'm fairly certain the only units that could be armed by them would be peasants in revolt.

[Youngsun]

Marcel I

Thank you for the encouragement.

quote: How will the assignment of men to your units work?

Say you have 2 milion serviceable population, if you set the draft rate as 10% , 200,000 men will be enlisted in your National manpower pool. Now you have the basic modules to create any unit whatever you like.

First you are given basic unit set which shows the latest/best module combination for each major military branch thus you don't have to customise your unit in the unit workshop if you don't want.

Then you check your arsenal, which has been stockpiling produced/purchased weapons, to see how you going to design your whole army.

quote: Will there be effects in drafting a large army to your (food)production?

Sure there should be production penalty since you draft your people from the industry.

quote: After all your productive workforce gets smaller if your people are occupied in the military

quote: I think you should create a national pool of potential conscripts, where you could move a sliderbar as to choose a percentage of your people for use in the military

Exactly!

quote: Maybe gameplay would become too complex but to me it seems a realistic idea.

Complex? There are two types of complex things. One thing that brings more fun and the other that brings boredom and frustration. CivI/II are already highly complex game compared to other strategy games that's why this genre has many die hard hard core fans who enjoys complicated features if that is properly represented.

Thank you Evil capitalist for the additional information.

[Youngsun]

*Unit Survivability*

Easy Example
When two opposing units clash, survivability of unit components(men) should be calculated like this:

Legionnaires total melee:50,000 men:5,000
Barbarians total melee:50,000 men:25,000

Note:No armour,support,mobility and doctrine were included above for simplicity.

While one legionnaires contribute 10 melee each to the whole troop, one barbarian does 2 melee each to his. To take down one legionnaire at least five barbarians should lay down at the battlefield(1:5 ratio)


Modified Example
Guess who will survive?
MBTs Firepower:3200(1600X2 hard target) Tanks:100
WWII tanks Firepower:4200(2100X2 hard target) Tanks:300

Unlike ancient melee, higher firepower means longer range(usually)in another word "Initiative" which allows the unit with higher firepower to shoot first before other units with lower firepower get a chance to shoot back(14 firepower held by a WWII tank and 32 firepower for a MBT)

Thus the 100 Modern MBTs hit 3200 firepower to the 300 WWII tanks first. The first test the firepower has to pass is "mobility" of WWII tank which is "5". A Modern MBT's mobility is "8" so can out-maneuver the WWII tank by "3" which is enormous gap! From the modern MBT's point of view, WWII tanks are nothing more than static objects with +3 mobility on the MBTs' side. So the entire 3200 firepower pass the enemy mobility with no problem.

Next is armour test. WWII tanks have 12 armour pts which makes the total armour 3600 pts. 400/12=33.3 Only survived 34(rounded)WWII tanks will have a chance to shoot back. 34X7=238 The remnants of WWII tank hit back with 238 firepower.

5:8 mobility gap means 37.5% of WWII tank hit will be missed due to the MBTs evasive move. Thus only 149(148.75)firepower will be directly delivered to the MBT armour. Modern MBT armour 100X30=3000 3000-149=2851

2851/30=95.3 96 modern MBTs will survive!

Note:No panic effect included(more than 40% casuality will cause morale breakdown)

100 modern MBTs engage 300 WWII tanks then 266 WWII tanks get destroyed by the first fire exchange while 4 moden MBTs were lost. If we introduced panic(shock) effect to this case the remnants of 34 WWII tanks will be in full retreat without hitting back so zero casuality guaranteed to MBT side.

Classic example
Phalanx vs Tank!!

Just one simple rule which is "Modern armour" negate "ancient melee" will prevent any bizzare outcome of when far advanced combat unit pitted against absolutely inferior combat unit.

Note:Modern armour(withstand firepower)and ancient armour(withstand ancient melee,support)are two completely different things here.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited August 28, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

I believe that the Warrior Sibko would work as a city improvement that when built would make all new units in that city have extra bonuses such as +1 melee etc.

It would work for machines and men except differently for men would gain mens upgrades and the machines would gain firepower upgrades or something like that.

I still firmly believe the full-body shield would be a good idea if not a great one even if you have to add more variations
I believe it would only be
-Wooden
For bronze would weigh too much.

[Youngsun]

quote: I believe it would only be-Wooden For bronze would weigh too much.

When we say a "Bronze spear", do we really mean that the whole body of the spear is constituted of bronze? We mean only the spear head don't we? By the same token, "Bronze shield" may represent any wooden shield that are covered or tipped by no metal but bronze. Actually if you want to represent them in more detail the way of using wood should be counted more seriously such as "plywood" for a Roman legionnaire shield. (Btw, there were some near eastern style round shield which consist wholely of light metal.)

A Full-body-shield is just another variation like M16/AK47 for Assault rifle group. If you want to generalise the shield list to only "wooden", I'm certainly willing to do that. Perhaps we need body armour list such chain mail or leather armour. Any suggestion on that?
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited August 28, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

Ideas for armor:

None (0 Defense)
Chain-Mail (1 Defense)
Leather (1.5 Defense) [Archers Armor; last able to use with archers]
Plate-Metal (2 Defense) [Knights Armor; last able to use with horses]
Bullet Proof Vest (3 Defense)
Kevlar (4 Defense)

We could also do helmets if you wish.

Also, surely I have omitted some types of armor as most Dungeons and Dragons and Warhammer fans will notice.

[Shadowstrike]

Chain mail can actually be stronger then leather in some situations. That is why it was more prefered by bthe knights of the period. Eventually, though, it was replaced by plate mail. Leather armour on the other hand, was light and flexible, perfect for archers.

[Youngsun]

Before I put them on the list, I'd like to see how you guys think.

Leather armour +1 armour(archer,skirmisher,etc)
Scale armour +2 armour -1 mobility(heavy inf,cavalry,etc)
Chain mail +3 amour -1 mobility(heavy inf,heavy cavalry,etc)
Plate armour +4 amour -2 mobility(knight)

Note: Mobility penalty/restriction will force each branch to stick with its own style of armour. ie. Archer(leather) Mounted Knight(plate)

Bullet-proof vest +7 armour -1 mobility(This should be extremely expensive)


Darkcloud

Thank you for the list.
Could you explain what is "Kevlar" ?
Helmets are fine. The "Armour" should represent the means of whole bodily attachable defence including helmets but the shield.

[Shadowstrike]

Kelvar is a type of bullet-proof plastic. Note that ancient armour give no protection against gunpowder-based weapons.

Including helmets and shields would increase the burden of micromanagement quite a bit, IMHO.

[DarkCloud]

Kevlar is the army's bulletproof vests. Kevlar is a lightweight material that can reasonably stop nearly any bullet from 20 feet away or something such as that.

Kevlar is an improved bulletproof vest.

[Youngsun]

I see thank you guys

Shadowstrike

I memtioned the difference between "ancient armour" and "modern armour" somewhere in this thread.

[jdlessl]

First I'd like to say that I love this list. It's fantasticly detailed, just as it should be.

Note that kevlar does not provide any melee protection. More than a few people have been fatally stabbed despite wearing bulletproof armor. Generally, it won't be a problem though, since any civ advanced enough to have kevlar won't be fighting with swords.

The battlefield mobility should also reflect what kind of terrain it's best in. Armor could chew through infantry on nice flat grasslands, but move it into a hilly/mountainous terrain or even a thick forest and its got problems. A simple all-unit movement reduction wouldn't suffice, since the infantry movement doesn't degrade nearly as much as it would for vehicles.

How turn-based is this tactical combat? It shouldn't always be 'one turn to close range', no matter what the difference might be. Units would move closer at their combat speed, thus giving the MBT's 3 or 4 unanswered volleys ((32 - 14) / 5)? In that case, you'd want to know the range of a given weapon, since it may not always be exactly proportional to it's firepower.

What happens when two sides are evenly matched? For instance, if the range of the two tanks is equal, who fires first? In the legion vs barbarian example, which side is going to win and at what cost? Most fights aren't to the death and one side retreats or is routed (it's not really a fight after that).

The computer would have to be given some basic tactics when controlling your units. Your archers should be placed behind the legionnaires when the enemy melee attacks, that sort of thing. Otherwise it'll end up losing easy battles, which we don't want. And just because you are attacking a square (strategic offense) doesn't mean you can't sit back and wait for the enemy to come to you (tactical defense).

Medical and salvage capabilities. Just because the tank is out of action, doesn't mean it's parts can't be used. If one side wins, they could use 10 (to pick a number at random) wrecked vehicles to restore 1 perfectly good one. Same thing for wounded soldiers. The usual ratio is 2 to 4 times as many wounded as killed. The survivors could be rounded up and captured or restored to full servuice, depending on who wins the battle.

How would veteran-ism affect how all this worked? Fortifications and trenches? Seiges? Supplies?

--
Jared Lessl

[Grumbold]

Re: Who fires first?

I think it is generally accepted in most 'wargame' scenarios that:

-the defender deploys first
-the attacker may be able to spot some if not all of those units before deploying
-the attacker moves first
-a stationary unit gets first fire if a target moves into its range (provided it did not fire already in its own turn)

I don't know how much of this will be relevant. The CtP2 combat screen involves no movement but does an ok job. The AI needs some work though to make it better.

[jdlessl]

I haven't played CtP2 yet, so someone needs to explain the combat resolution system.

A deployment menu would be nice. From what I've seen, individual battles are utilizing more and more troops, and becoming somewhat rarer. If battles become large and sparse enough, they could even implement an Imperialism 2 type combat interface.

With regard to the Roman Legion vs Barbarian Horde example; as was accurately pointed out, there is a point at which an army will break and run. Generally speaking, the more veteran the troops, the higher casualties they can take and still remain a cohesive unit. The legionnaires will more likely be very highly trained, while the barbarians are, well, barbarous. They'll break at, say, 20% casualties (5-10% dead, depends on medical abilities). The Romans could take 40% (10-20% dead, modded by meds). Thus the two sides would start off killing each other at a 1:5 ratio, but the barbarians would break first and then take a few more casualties in the retreat. Include both morale and experience levels. Combat resolution would thus include modifiers based on relative experience and morale. So happy, inexperienced troops would be about on par with unhappy, veteran ones.

When troops are not in battle, their experience goes down slowly and the morale goes up quickly. Put them in a city and the levels change even faster (we'll ignore le cafard for now). Increasing military spending (for training) can, of course, keep experience from going down as fast.

My big problem is that as the battle realism goes up, tactics become ever more important. Various combinations of number of units, attack range, and basic capabilities will decide even the simplest choice: attack or stay put. It'll be really hard to program a halfway intelligent tactics system to utilize combined arms effectively.

a stationary unit gets first fire if a target moves into its range
This could be a problem in WW1 or later era battles since since by this point some artillery duels took place so far apart that in between when one side fired and the shot actually hit, the other side could find a target, load, and fire back. Maybe a shell velocity value? It'd make any transition from projectile to laser/particle beam/rail gun weapons interesting... No, the easiest thing I can think of would be to make relative casualties per tactical turn very light so that no side gets a ridiculous advantage from attacking first.

--
Jared Lessl