Openciv3 Military Headquaters

[korn469]

well here lately i have had lots of military design ideas floating around in my head and i feel that though this may be a bit premature that we will definantly need a military design for the game so lets kick this discussion off

korn469

[korn469]

ok we need unit attributes...this is reguardless of how we build the unit (like civ2 or if we have a recruitment system, or if they are mercenaries or whatever)

so here is what i propose

Attack: this is the unit's strength, it is used to findout how successful it's attacks are.
Defense: this is the unit's ability to avoid damage
Armor: this is how much damage a unit can soak up if it is actually hit.
Range: this is mainly a modern unit attribute, it determines how far away one unit can engage another
Firepower: this is how many hit points are subtracted from a unit when it is successfully hit
Rate of fire: this is how many times per round of combat a unit can attack. this is primarily a modern unit attribute
Hitpoints: this is how many points of damage a unit can suffer before it is destroyed
Disipline: this is how well a unit is trained, this replaced the morale in SMAC, it is very similar to morale in SMAC
Experiance: this is a new concept that tells how experianced a unit is in battle
Supply: this tells the current supply level of the unit, once a unit runs out of supply it starts losing hit points
Morale: this tells how ready a unit is to fight, it is a measure of a units disipline, experiance, hitpoints and supply...with one quick look you can tell if your unit is ready to attack or is on the verge of retreat

i will now give you a battle example

you have two units

the first one is a korean war era infantry division (aprox. 20,000 soldiers)


Attack: 10
Defense: 8
Armor: 2
Range: 10
Firepower: 4
Rate of fire: 3
Hitpoints: 200
Disipline: good
Experiance: fair
Supply: adequate
Morale: good

the second is a roman legion (aprox. 6000 soldiers)

Attack: 7
Defense: 6
Armor: 1
Range: 1
Firepower: 2
Rate of fire: 1
Hitpoints: 60
Disipline: excellent
Experiance: battle tested
Supply: good
Morale: high

then instead of combat to the death each turn will have so many rounds of combat...when a unit makes a hasty attack during a turn the turn will have fewer rounds of combat

here are some basic rules of combat

1. a tile can only be attacked once per turn (this necessitates using stacked combat and massing your forces)
2. units advance into a tile for combat

there will be an arbitrary number of rounds of combat and for my example i am going to use twenty rounds

we will assume that this was not a suprise attack

ok so when two units are in range they conduct battle on a round by round basis

unless one side has a range bonus or a special effect (for example one side has managed a sneak attack) both units attack and defend simultaneously

however since the korean war infantry unit has a range advanatge over the roman legion the korean war era units get nine free attacks where it doesn't have to defend and where the roman legion doesn't get to attack it just defends...also since the korean infantry unit has a rate of fire of three that means it gets three attacks per round whereas the roman legion only gets one attack per round

the ~ symbol seperating actions means that the action is happening simultaneously

the :: symbol seperating actions means that those actions happen after the original action

round 1: KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends
round 2: KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends
round 3: KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends
round 4: KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends
round 5: KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends
round 6: KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends
round 7: KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends
round 8: KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends
round 9: KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends
round 10: KI attacks~RL attacks~KI defends~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends
round 11: KI attacks~RL attacks~KI defends~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends
round 12: KI attacks~RL attacks~KI defends~RL defends::KI attacks~RL defends~RL is destroyed

any thoughts so far?

korn469

[heardie]

I can see where you are coming from, but I just think the a system with firepower, hit points, attack defense, is all to much. Why not just attack and defense. Though writing this now I can see holes in it. i fyou were to only uses attack and defense then the number would have to represent both the chance of hitting and the amount you take away. Ill have a think about it

------------------
-Chiron Creators-
"http://members.xoom.com/acchiron"

[amjayee]

I think discussing combat stuff before unit stuff has been discussed sounds a little premature, but yes, something can be done without deep knowledge of how the units work. At least it is good to make some ideas for the combat system.

I will discuss the unit properties soon in the units section, but here are some thoughts of your proposals.

The first seven unit properties seem quite ok for me (until discipline). I'd like to add here the vision of the unit (how well it can notice other units) and stealth (how well it can avoid noticing). Also it might be possible to add "mobility" in addition of movement points. It describes how maneuverable the unit is. More mobile units (cavalry, tanks) have an ability to outmaneuver the less mobile ones (infantry, artillery) thus avoiding the attacks, and in advance causing more lethal attacks against the other one. Between airplanes and ships, mobility might affect very much who wins the battle.

The last four properties seem to deal with morale and such. First I thought there were too many of them, but then I started to see the logic in them. Some changes though: I'd like to change discipline to training. That means the amount of training units have got; like recruit-rookie-green-veteran-elite or something like that. Discipline doesn't sound right.

Experiance: the amount of battle that unit has seen. I also suggest that this figure will become smaller with time, if the unit doesn't engage in battle. It sounds strange if the same unit still remembers the battles fought a thousand years ago.

Supply: this sounds like a good property. I first thought that supply could be included to the morale, but the idea of losing hitpoints when inadequately supplied sounded good.

Morale: this describes the current state of mind of the soldiers. It will change rapidly throughout the time. It is important that this is high when the battle starts.

Generally, it is better to have too many unit properties than too little. More properties don't cause very much more work, since the combat resolving code will not be one of the hardest to make. So, I think we can concentrate on modelling the combat as well as is reasonable, taking into consideration the game scope (the units represent thousands of men), and include all the properties that we think are needed. Then we programmers will create the combat system based on those properties.

Some thoughts of the general combat system:

I propose that in order to fight, the units need to be in the _same_tile_. That means, the unit doesn't attack another by attempting to move to the same tile. In order to be able to attack, the unit has to be in the same tile, and then the player may choose the attack unit command. It might also be possible, that the units are in the same tile without noticing each other (remember that the tile size is 50-100 kilometers. How possible it is, that small groups of men see each other when in an area that large?). This is decided by the vision and stealth properties.

Artillery units might be able to attack from the adjacent tile.

Each unit can attack one other unit a certain amount of times. That amount is decided by the unit stats (there might be some property deciding how many attacks the unit has - perhaps rate of fire) and the amount of movement points left for that unit.

The first unit to attack is decided by the ranges of the units. If another units has far larger range than the other, it might be able to attack multiple times before the other has its change.

When there are not any attacks left for the units, the battle "pauses" until next turn. Either, or any unit can retreat from the battle at any time. This means moving to another tile. The first unit to retreat is considered to lose the battle, and that would affect its morale. Units may also surrender, if their morale drops too low.

Battle to death is very rare. Only occasionally that has happened in world history.

Hope this gives some ideas. I will give it more thought later.


[This message has been edited by amjayee (edited May 23, 2000).]

[korn469]

well in civ2 they had the following combat stats

attack
defense
firepower
hitpoints

and there were holes in the civ2 combat system

in SMAC the game had the following combat stats

attack
defense
hitpoints

and pretty much the SMAC system makes the economics of war wayyyy more important than any tactics having lots of cheap high attack units is the only strategy to go with

to have some tactical variety we need an adequate number of stats to simulate combat, it can also help us distinguish between units, and it could also help with certain problems, like the first firearms compared to high quality archers...i mean i think that i read somewhere that native american warriors could usually get off about three arrows to every one shot for an american army unit (before repeating rifles)

i do not think that just having an attack and a defense stat would be the best way for the openciv3 military system to work
but that is just my opinion

korn469

[Victor Galis]

Several things: one, I would not limit combat to any number of rounds. Instead, you could issue an order at the beginning of the attack, to retreat after so many casualties (10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, to the death). You could fight to the death, or until one of the units routed and retreated, at which point it would be destroyed if the attacker had it surrounded, or the attacker could pursue it and fight again if he still had movement points.

I would call Defense as you have it Evasion. I have all this under my old combat summary, which is still here somewhere. I'll try to dig it up.

Also armor should be two numbers, like 7(4). This means armor is 7, but it takes an attack of at least 4, to even hope to damage it. A phalanx no matter how lucky, can not destroy a tank. Most infantry would be damagable by any attack though.

Also I would make Hitpoints the exact number of troops, not of hundreds thereof. This way, early units (under 5000), could lose small percentages to non-combat things (like, hostile terrain, desertion, etc.)

"Range: this is mainly a modern unit attribute, it determines how far away one unit can engage another"

-There's nothing modern about bows and catapults, unless you mean that these could engage across into the next tile, without a direct attack. This would give **** Sorry got kicked off at this point. more to come later.

Firepower: this is how many hit points are subtracted from a unit when it is successfully hit
Rate of fire: this is how many times per round of combat a unit can attack. this is primarily a modern unit attribute"

[Victor Galis]

http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000159.html

Sorry, don't have time to say more, but I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel here.

[amjayee]

Victor:

I agree that unit hitpoints should mean the amount of men in it. I also thought that in could be possible that some men get only wounded by the attack. Then, there could be a green bar of healthy men (capable of fighting) and red bar of wounded men (incapable of fighting). Then, healing one man requires certain amount of time, depending on the conditions. The dead men would be needed to replace with reinforcements, they couldn't be "repaired". Reinforcements would be needed to move to the unit being reinforced as normal units, and they could be attacked on their way... etc.

Some units with "area effect" like artillery could kill maximum of x men, and wound maximum of y men with one shot.

With the "machine" units there should a "fleet" of machines (like cannons, ships, aircraft) and men operating them. Each machine would have certain amount of hitpoints, and there would be certain amount of machines in one unit. So, the attack could destroy or damage one of the machines in the unit. Those could be fixed or replaced, and the remaining ones would attack with same strength but less memebers.

With modern navy, the units could be "teams"; like a battleship group, carrier group, each one with one main unit and supporting smaller units.

I completely agree with the armor property. This would prevent the ridiculous situations of phalanxmen popping off the bolts keeping a tank together and destroying it... attacking unit with superior armor would result in cold-blooded slaughtering. Cruel, but realistic. Also, the phalanxmen couldn't run away from the tank... well, except by escaping to thick woods. I can't wait to pay back my losses in former civs to those poor phalanxes...

I also agree with range. All units have a range; ancient infantry has one, spearmen two, archers 3, longbowmen 4 etc... generally unit with longest range attacks first.

I remember I liked your combat text very much. I will take a better look at it and comment it then. I'll also discuss the unit stats in the units thread.
[This message has been edited by amjayee (edited May 30, 2000).]

[Victor Galis]

"I agree that unit hitpoints should mean the amount of men in it. I also thought that in could be possible that some men get only wounded by the attack. Then, there could be a green bar of healthy men (capable of fighting) and red bar of wounded men (incapable of fighting). Then, healing one man requires certain amount of time, depending on the conditions."

-Sounds nice

"The dead men would be needed to replace with reinforcements, they couldn't be "repaired". Reinforcements would be needed to move to the unit being reinforced as normal units, and they could be attacked on their way... etc."

-If you are in a town of yours you could set production to repair unit. Or also, in lower tech eras or for units like partizans, you could regain men just by being in friendly territory (especially the partizans). This might lower the average experience of the unit though.

"With the "machine" units there should a "fleet" of machines (like cannons, ships, aircraft) and men operating them. Each machine would have certain amount of hitpoints, and there would be certain amount of machines in one unit. So, the attack could destroy or damage one of the machines in the unit. Those could be fixed or replaced, and the remaining ones would attack with same strength but less memebers."

-Same thing. I think for tanks hit points would equal number of tanks, except that to kill one of these hit points you'd have to do more damage. (I think a private variable in the unit class would show the hit point multiplyer).

"I also agree with range. All units have a range; ancient infantry has one, spearmen two, archers 3, longbowmen 4 etc... generally unit with longest range attacks first.

I remember I liked your combat text very much. I will take a better look at it and comment it then. I'll also discuss the unit stats in the units thread."


-I'll dig up my combat resolution thing from the thread if you don't have time to read the whole thing.

[amjayee]

"Or also, in lower tech eras or for units like partizans, you could regain men just by being in friendly territory (especially the partizans). This might lower the average experience of the unit though."

A VERY good idea. Also, the partisans would spawn from the tiles to attack your units and infrastructure, and they would be normal workers in other times. This way it would be harder to kill the resistance movement, which is only realistic. You would need to organize large operations to find the arms the partisans have hid, and perhaps order some executions, that might increase the resistance... etc


"Same thing. I think for tanks hit points would equal number of tanks, except that to kill one of these hit points you'd have to do more damage. (I think a private variable in the unit class would show the hit point multiplyer)."

YES! This was excactly what I was looking for. The unit has certain amount of hitpoints (members) and each member needs x amount of damage to be destroyed... if less than x damage is inflicted, the member becomes "damaged" and could be fixed. Same with all units, also infantry. This combines the two unit types, so we will not need specific rules for each. This is good. Thanks.

Should the variables be "hitpoints" (per member) and "members" (the amount of men, tanks, etc.)? Any better ideas?

"I'll dig up my combat resolution thing from the thread if you don't have time to read the whole thing."

No need, I printed it out and read it... There are some very good ideas. I will add them in the unit summary, and discuss combat stuff here. I will remove the stuff concerning how each property works, since that can be balanced later. For now, it is most important to gather all properties that are wanted into one package.

I just hope I would have more time... If any one of you has time and interest, it would be possible to make a summary of ideas (for all topics, or only one of them) you think should be in the game. Please email it to me when it's ready, so I can examine it and add to the "official" summaries and give credit.

[Guildmaster]

Let's not forget a couple things that were missing in Civ2 that really pissed me off...

1) The ability to deploy units. I think it's stupid that it would take 20 years for a bomber to get from one point to another. I think that you should be able to deploy units wherever you want them to be the same turn or the turn after.

2) Pre-emptive strike. In CTP if you flew by an enemy city that had a fighter present you lose your flier. Good idea. We should extend that to all combat-ready units both fighters and artilleryt and all kinds of units. If your detection roll scores better than your enemy's stealth roll and your stealth roll scores better than your enemy's detection roll, you have spotted your enemy before he's spotted you. As such, your units should be able to attack automatically (if ordered to fire-at-will) even on your enemy's turn, even as he's moving them. To expand on that, air superiority fighters need to be able to intercept enemy airplanes before they enter your airspace instead of waiting to pass by one of your cities. TO do this, we use the patrol rules...

3) Patrol. You need to be able to "ghost" your military from active gameplay by putting them on "patrol" in a certain area. That unit is then covering an entire area and has a base chance to detect any enemy movement in that area based on the size of the zone, nature of the unit, stealth of the enemy and time spent in the patrolled zone. This especially needs to be true of submarines and interceptors. Now looking back to point 1, to deploy a unit a route must be outlined. Any such routes passing through these patrol zones can be intercepted and destroyed using point 2.

This means convoys will need to be escorted, as will bombers. Civ2 lets you build SAM batteries which double defense strength. That is stupid, I want to be able to shoot down the bombers before they get a chance to attack. I want to be able to set up SAM batteries in places of high air traffic long before the bombers even get here.

It real wars, the thing most important of all has always been the ability to spot an enemy first. Firepower has almost always came second. Especially today when anything that can be found can be killed. We have A-10 warthogs and apache helicopters which are both essentially flying can-openers. In a fight the warthog would win, unless the tank spotted him first, in which case the tank would blow the thing out of the sky.

Now you guys talk about phalanxes. This is something, does anybody but me think that the fact alone those phalanxes are still in existence is stupid and rediculous? I always found deleting these and treplacing them with more modern units buth tedious and time consuming and wasteful. Every time you develop a new weapon, you should be able to pay a one-time fee to upgrade X number of units. Also, your military won't be happy in the age of armored warfare if you still have guys throwing spears so just pay to modernize obsolete units. That way it's still the same sims, just need to be retrained and refitted. Failure to do so might cause a loss of support of your military depending on how bad it is. Geez I love this interest group thing! Thanks Joker.

[amjayee]

Guildmaster:

Yes, I agree. These things should be added:

1. Each unit should have a movement range. Air units would be able to intercept any incoming enemy within that range. Ground troops could be deployed anywhere within that range - but they need to be deployed along a specified path. Enemy could then intercept then when they are on their way, or ambush them, etc. This is done during one turn. Ships could travel anywhere within their range without resupplying. Then they need to spend some time at the coast or a city to resupply. If deployed farther than the unit can get in one turn, it will take several turns.

2. The unit spotting thing has to be like you suggested, and the escort system also - you could order a unit to protect certain trade or suppy route, or to escort bombers etc. Also the patrol system is a must - you could order certain unit to keep an eye on certain area. The larger the area, the harder it is for the unit to notice the enemy units.

3. SAM sites and other military structures should be done as you suggest.

4. If units enter enemy territory, that results in ultimatum by the enemy, and even to war. Enemy may then send his army to confront the intruders. This would require, that during wartime, the time slows down, and units are maneuvered tile-by-tile as in civ2. Mainly units could be moved during a war, but in longer campaigns also production could be changed, but it would finished slower, and new units could be hired etc. In general, wars should be more interesting, and they should not last for millennias as in civ2.

5. The unit upgrade thing will be easier, if you don't build a unit, but the equipment. You have an army of x men, and you give them the weapons you have, and they learn how to use them. When you invent better weapons, you just sell or recycle the old ones, and give the new arms to your men, etc.

[Guildmaster]

I like that idea too, I have always felt it kinda awkward that you can't retrain existing soldiers to use modern weapons.
And here's something I just came up with...

You know what we're doing with the YF-22 Raptor? You deploy them in pairs of two, with one plane 30 miles in front of the other. The guy in the rear bangs away with his radar which automatically gives away his position, and sends the info to his partner 30 miles ahead. SO when the enemy thinks the guy is 25 miles away from firing range, he's actually 5 miles IN firing range. Pretty cool I think.
We could incorporate this by having each milestone tech broken down into subtechs. Say once you discover the "Aircraft Stealth" you have three (or any number) aspects, Stealth Design, Stealth Materials, and Stealth tactics. The example used here would be under tactics. Tactics would cost very little for the upgrade because it only involves training, and since there's no real difference in the aircraft you only get a +1 bonus. For design no upgrade is available, it lowers aircraft speed and maneuverability a little bit but gives the biggest stealth bonus, a +5. Materials cost a buttload to upgrade, but they don't intrude on performance and they give a +3 bonus. Now how does this work?
Radar has a maximum of 8, Radar will not detect anything with a stealth of 9 or better. Older radar systems will be worse than this. This includes all enemy aircraft, ships, and land systems equipped with radar. If an aircraft has a stealth of 9 and it's opponent is equipped with radar, he has no chance of being detected. If the radar can pick up Stealth 8, and the thing being detected is a 8, there is a 10% chance of being spotted, a 50% if the plane has 7, a 90% if the plane has 6 and normal if it has 5 or less. Now all radar isn't capable of detecting 8, only the most advanced radar, in fact by the time your radar is 8, you will probably have developped something more advanced by then.
Radar is 6/Stealth is 7: no chance
Stealth is 6: 10% chance
Stealth is 5: 50% chance
Stealth is 4: 90% chance
etc.
Ok now I have a better idea. These technologies can be incremental. Once you discover "Aircraft Stealth" you get three stats...
Design 1/5
Materials 1/3
Tactics 1/2
And in order to increase design up to 2, you have to develop superior design and so on and so forth up to a maximum of 5. The same thing could be done with Radar, once you develop Radar, you get a base radar of 3 just like stealth.
Range 1/3
Sensitivity 1/3
Tactics 1/2
Of course in general terms the three work as one bu they could easily be broken up and played off each other. Range is the obvious example here. I may have a stealth 4 and my enemy may have a radar 6 but I may simply be out of range. A plane with Stealth tactics of 2 for a total of 4 facing a radar 7 with radar tactics of only 1 would create a situation: Though his stealth isn't advanced enough evade detection any more than a normal aircraft, he is able to employ a number of evasion tactics to avoid detection. This gives him an automatic 30% stealth increase over conventional aircraft. Now if the radar had a radar tactics of 2 to match him, they would simply be aware of the techniques he's using and he wouldn't get the bonus.
Other things...
Aircraft flying under a radar umbrella such as an AWAC or a ground based radar platform get a +1 stealth since they don't have to give away their position by using their own radar. They also automatically get the radar level of the umbrella. Say it's an older plane that hasn't been upgraded, has a radar of 3. Now there is an AWAC flying around which has a radar of 5. All aircraft within range of the AWAC would automatically get a radar of 5 even if they weren't equipped with radar. This would represent a tremendous tactical advantage.
There could be enough technologies in the area of aircraft to do the whole game on the evolution of aerocombat... differences in vectoral thrust, long-range missiles, radar lock and heat seeking, night vision, etc. Don't let me touch this.

[amjayee]

About the AWACS thing; if we use airfleets, the fleets could be "equipped" with the AWACS capability. AWACS would be a special unit you would develop and build, but you wouldn't move it on the map, just station it in some airfleet. Then all the air operations of that fleet would get the advantage of the better radar - don't worry, the military people can't be without using the new toys they have got, even if using it would not be absolutely necessary.

Then again, another nice feature could be that if the enemy attacks your airfleet, he could set the priorities, what to attack - he could order his pilots to try and destroy your AWACS planes, and you of course would defend them well.

Furthermore, I think not all units should be like the ones in earlier civ games, that are moved on the screen tile by tile. If we concentrate more on _armies_ than units, many interesting things come available. You could "build" your armies of components; tanks for supporting your infantrymen and to provide heavy assault strength, AA troops and SAMs for protection from airstrikes, communication units to provide better efficiency in the operations, command units to enhance the coordination of the troops, artillery for long-range attacks and supporting fire, etc... you could emphasize the "mixture" of the troops depending on what you plan to use that army for. Then, you would move the whole army, not the individual units. This would also reduce the need to make complex graphics for every minor unit-type. Stacked combat taken further.

About your air combat stuff - they sound good. Your scientists and engineers would always look for better ways to do certain things. They would develop things like stealth better and better. Then, you decide what kinds of features you want for your fighter squadron, or if the modifications are not too decisive, you could upgrade the old planes - for example you could not upgrade from the ordinary jet fighters to stealth fighters, you would need to design a new aircraft type. The unit design workshop could be used, but it needs to be better than in SMAC.

The workshop is needed, to allow a larger variation of troops, and to make the technology thing actually count for something - if you develop better swords, your swordsmen are still swordssmen, but they have better weapons. That would be an advantage in the combat. There sould be a
certain set of soldier types - swordsmen, spearmen, archers, musketeers, etc. Each unit type has certain advantages and disadvantages in combat. Then the weapons the men use would give some bonus effects.

The problem in the SMAC's unit workshop was, that they tried to make it too complex. There was too many things you needed to manage. If we make a larger variety of unit types (kinda like in civ2), that can be adjsuted, but not too widely, and make some upgrades automatic, we should be quite safe...