For some time I have been battling with the problems associated with a military model for a game like this. For now I won't go into the question of whether to have 'tactical' contol over the filed on a more zoomed up map but it may come up in that it's all linked together. For the moment I'll just say that my ideas are based on an assumption that I would have some degree of tactical comand in the field during an appropriately sizeable engagement.
The main issue I'm wrestling with is unit types and unit creation. I like the idea of categorising units into very broad 'types' and then modifying the artwork and units stats to create more realistic diversity (the sort of thing being discussed in the 'Big Picture' thread. This was the kind of thing I had in mind:
MOB
Undisciplined group with mixed weapons
POLE ARM
Armed with shaft weapons like spears, pikes etc
SHOCK
Armed with close fighting weapons (sword, axe, mace)
RANGED
Armed with missiles - javelins, bows, slings etc)
As far as infantry go those are the staples of ancient and medieval warfare. But then gunpowder comes about and shatters those nice divisions. At first gun wielding troops served a 'ranged' role - sort of cheap short ranged archers... then a new unit type came about which would lead to future developments. It was a mixture of pikemen (defence) and musketmen (attack) all rolled into one well trained unit called a 'tercio'.
The tercio was a massively dominant formation from the beginning of the 16th century until the late 17th century when bayonettes came about and made it obsolete. So my question is - do we put in a mixed unit - a tercio?
TERCIO
Armed with pikes and muskets
As it is we're going to see more mixing as warfare changes ever more - next thing you get to WW2 era and you have a single unit made up of a number of different troops (machine gunners, riflemen, mortar guys, anti tank, engineers etc etc etc). So does one take it that 'mixed units' are in anyway and not be shy to have something like a TERCIO in the earlier game?
What are people's thoughts on mixed units? They certainly seem to feature largely in military history. As it is we have armies in Clash of several units combined, but what of the units themselves being mixed and not homogenous? You might say you assume it anyway and feel I'm getting into too much detail here but I'm thinking about this because I 'm trying to work out what I'll see on the battlefield if I'm given tactical command.
I don't need to see a Total War style 'each and every man in 3D' type of battle but at least reasonable groups of men that will clash with and attempt to rout eachother. (the game 'Great Battles of Alexander' comes to mind)
That game was turn based though and I think real time might be more dramatic and iron over a lot of problems but it's debatable. I'd also put in at least 3D terrain...sort of like this...
...Doesn't have to be that fancy though, just a 3D board with some hills etc for the field and little groups of sprite soldiers (smaller groups than in the MTW example) much like the little groups from the Alexander game above so that we know we're dealing with many thousands of men but that they're represented as little units - perhaps putting the mouse over your units will tell you how many hundreds or thousands of soldiers are in the unit. This way we can have earth shatteringly gigantic battles involving hundreds of thousands with relatively little effort from the player or the computer. It'll be great for story telling and game literature etc and the player will be able to experience a bit of tactical command and feel like the great miltary conquerers of history - if they choose to take that route in their game.
Anyway, there is lots to discuss about the miltiary side of this game and how it'll link into the other aspects like trade and diplomacy etc. This thread is for topics of a military nature.
Even if we leave off tactical command for now I think there is much to discuss with unit divisions in particular - I'll come back with a full list of unit types as I think (at least for now!) they should be.
The main issue I'm wrestling with is unit types and unit creation. I like the idea of categorising units into very broad 'types' and then modifying the artwork and units stats to create more realistic diversity (the sort of thing being discussed in the 'Big Picture' thread. This was the kind of thing I had in mind:
MOB
Undisciplined group with mixed weapons
POLE ARM
Armed with shaft weapons like spears, pikes etc
SHOCK
Armed with close fighting weapons (sword, axe, mace)
RANGED
Armed with missiles - javelins, bows, slings etc)
As far as infantry go those are the staples of ancient and medieval warfare. But then gunpowder comes about and shatters those nice divisions. At first gun wielding troops served a 'ranged' role - sort of cheap short ranged archers... then a new unit type came about which would lead to future developments. It was a mixture of pikemen (defence) and musketmen (attack) all rolled into one well trained unit called a 'tercio'.
The tercio was a massively dominant formation from the beginning of the 16th century until the late 17th century when bayonettes came about and made it obsolete. So my question is - do we put in a mixed unit - a tercio?
TERCIO
Armed with pikes and muskets
As it is we're going to see more mixing as warfare changes ever more - next thing you get to WW2 era and you have a single unit made up of a number of different troops (machine gunners, riflemen, mortar guys, anti tank, engineers etc etc etc). So does one take it that 'mixed units' are in anyway and not be shy to have something like a TERCIO in the earlier game?
What are people's thoughts on mixed units? They certainly seem to feature largely in military history. As it is we have armies in Clash of several units combined, but what of the units themselves being mixed and not homogenous? You might say you assume it anyway and feel I'm getting into too much detail here but I'm thinking about this because I 'm trying to work out what I'll see on the battlefield if I'm given tactical command.
I don't need to see a Total War style 'each and every man in 3D' type of battle but at least reasonable groups of men that will clash with and attempt to rout eachother. (the game 'Great Battles of Alexander' comes to mind)
That game was turn based though and I think real time might be more dramatic and iron over a lot of problems but it's debatable. I'd also put in at least 3D terrain...sort of like this...
...Doesn't have to be that fancy though, just a 3D board with some hills etc for the field and little groups of sprite soldiers (smaller groups than in the MTW example) much like the little groups from the Alexander game above so that we know we're dealing with many thousands of men but that they're represented as little units - perhaps putting the mouse over your units will tell you how many hundreds or thousands of soldiers are in the unit. This way we can have earth shatteringly gigantic battles involving hundreds of thousands with relatively little effort from the player or the computer. It'll be great for story telling and game literature etc and the player will be able to experience a bit of tactical command and feel like the great miltary conquerers of history - if they choose to take that route in their game.
Anyway, there is lots to discuss about the miltiary side of this game and how it'll link into the other aspects like trade and diplomacy etc. This thread is for topics of a military nature.
Even if we leave off tactical command for now I think there is much to discuss with unit divisions in particular - I'll come back with a full list of unit types as I think (at least for now!) they should be.
Comment