Should there be an Optional Tactical Combat System?

[Mark_Everson]

I'm pretty much done sketching out the military system. There are still a huge number of details to resolve, but its getting there. I hope to have my proposal up by thursday or friday. Anyway, one thing that has been brought up by various people is the possiblity of a tactical mini-game for fighting out army vs. army conflicts. In the spirit of Clash this would only be used when the player actively wants it.

To that end I am trying to design the strategic combat system so that it would be possible to add on a tactical system at a later date. I'd like to hear who would use the tactical one if we put it in there, and, if you'd use it, what kind of features you'd like to see in it. Right now I envision for a tactical system:
simultaneous movement
some fog of war (initial positioning also done partly blind)
combat occurs for units in the same mini-square
ranged weapons that fire x squares
infantry and more mobile troops
air units that can range the battlefield at will (unless fighting each other)
simple morale system

Any ideas about these proposals or anything else, fire away!

-Mark

[F Smith]

It'd net us the 'RTS' market, as an added bonus.

I, of course, love the idea. I remember an old Atari game in which you played a single space fighter. You watched groups of enemy ships move across a big 'galaxy' map, and could 'warp' to any quadrant and fight (flight-sim style).

Anyone remember the first 'Star Wars' games on the old Apple II's? This is the same basic game concept. We should build on what has been successfully developed in the past!

It should be a 'release 2' or whatever. But it's a must, for the 'perfect' game.

[F_Smith]

One thing --

With a Real-time 'Strategic' game, I'd hoped to be one of the first with a strategic command and control system for units.

It will have to be based on 'orders'.

When a unit first gets 'sight' of an enemy, the player will then need to make one of several choices --

1) Recon in force
a. engage enemy on contact
b. test enemy strengths, then withdraw
c. dig in and await reinforcement
d. refuse battle
2) scout the enemy while digging in.
a. use a screening force to engage/occupy the enemy while main force entrenches on chosen ground
b. use scout force to threaten enemy rear/lines of communication while main force digs in
3) assault the enemy.
a. depending on the leader's quality/experience, etc, a variety of 'tactical' choices will be available, including 'envelopment', 'frontal assault', 'feign retreat', etc.

I'd prefer the orders to be set before combat, altho it will be possible to change them, I suppose.

This should take the combat out of the realm of 'mouse clicking'.

[F_Smith]

P.S. -- this means that 'besiege' would be part of #3, and only possible if a leader trained/experienced in sieges was with the group.

[F_Smith]

Or, perhaps, a siege (or other assault type) would be *possible* if a leader had never done one before, but his 'skill' modifier would be zero. And after a siege, he would gain some skill in that catagory.

This sounds *very* fun, to me.

Can you tell I'm bored at work, and thinking this thru here on the boards?

[Hrafnkell]

The reason for all this silly mouse-clicking in RTS games is that your units either do nothing or something extremely stupid when not under your direct control. So if we could 'program' units to act intelliegently to a given situation I think players would be able to think a bit more about their strategy and release them from this frantic mouse-clicking all the time. Players should be able to Trust their units to do what they´re supposed to do.

[F_Smith]

Hraf:

That's exactly my thinking. And there needs to be a range of 'tactical' responses available, all based upon real tactical command orders -- recon in force, refuse battle, etc.

Mark:

On the 'strategic' scale, you are likely correct -- there will have to be 'missions', as you outlined. And all units should have standing tactical orders how to deal with any enemy they encounter *before* you send them on one of those 'strategic' missions -- destroy enemy? How? Frontal assault? Flanking manouver? Refuse battle and harrass supply lines?

I'm hoping for a *real* wargame, I'm afraid. One with both strategic and tactical control.

[Mark_Everson]

F:

Would you like to put together a military order flowchart and figure out how it would work? I think we could go back and forth for a while on this... If the player can enter military preferences at any level from large-scale down to very small scale I think we will be able to fine-tune the kind of behavior Hrafnkell is talking about. I think it'd need to be a case of: first try option a (say, flank attack if odds favorable) if not try b (frontal attack if odds appear ok) or c (ravage countryside...)

-Mark

[F Smith]

I was hoping for something like:

From the main map, you right click on a square with military units in it, then left-click on a unfriendly square. You are then presented with a pop-up list of 'missions' available (depending on circumstance, of course) -- Recon, Conquer, Lay Waste, Trade, etc. You select one, then a popup box appears saying "If confronted by the enemy, sir, how should we react? -- and a list of tactical choices presents itself.

Recon: upon first sighting an enemy, skirt enemy Line of Sight, careful not to end up overextended.
Tactical Choices: withdraw, skirmish then withdraw, or threaten supply lines.

Conquer: upon first sighting an enemy, assess relative strengths. If you can take them, attack. If not, demand reinforcements. Failure to reinforce will lower morale of leaders and men.
Tactical Choices: Frontal Assault/Besiege, Envelope/Threaten supply lines, Screen and Entrench.

Lay Waste: avoid combat with military units, retreating when confronted. Primary targets are resources.
Tactical Choices: Flee, Screen and move, Penetrate deeper.

Then a pop-up screen says, "Do you wish to Command the forces yourself?" -- the 'tactical battle' choice. If you say 'No', you will be asked, 'Do you wish to watch the battle'? If you say yes, you can watch the AI run the show on the tactical map. If you chose to command, then the tactical screen of the province you're invading shows up. Certain areas (roads, paths, valleys, whatever) are colored to show you can place units there. You can break your army up however you please at this point, place your units where you want, and change individual units orders.

An example:
You order 2,000 infantry (pikemen) and 1,000 horsemen (lancers) to Conquer:Assault/Besiege the farmland to the north. You have 3 choices of entry -- a hilly pass, a river vally and a road on the other side of an impassable thick forest.

You place the infantry in the pass, and change their orders to 'screen and entrench'. You then click on them, and use waypoints (or guide them with the mouse, inch by inch) to move towards the main town. (When you meet the enemy, that unit will dig in.) Then place the thousand horsemen on that road, and order them (via waypoints) to sweep up around that forest and into the heartland and and attack the main town. (This unit will then frontal assault or besiege that town, depending on relative strengths.) You are given a short period of time, say 2 minutes, in which to do all this at leisure. Then it goes live. You then watch as the units move. You can still click on and change a units orders at any time, including one-click 'disengage' and 'retreat' options.

Oh, perhaps we only allow you to personally command one battle per turn? The rest you have to leave to a 'general'? This would help out the multiplayer problem, some, too--

Unit mixes, moral, experience and order combinations will determine the losses suffered by two units in hostile contact. You chose 'attack/besiege' and he chose 'attack/besiege', then straight head to head combat is computed. When one is 'attack/besiege' and the other is 'screen and entrench', then the screener loses more men at first, but after a period they gain a defensive 'entrenchment' bonus (like a bunker in starcraft). And so on, and so on.

Whew! I just rambled right on out the door!

sorry . . .

[Mark_Everson]

It seems to me you need a more flexible system. Because in real time you may not notice a pending battle until its too late. IMO each side should have orders for each front that are fairly general.
Take territory
Destroy army
Pillage
Or maybe a certain fraction of each.
Then in adition there would be parameters like:
Only attack at 2:1+ odds
Never attack until reaching the strategic objective (the old strategic offensive /tactical defensive deal where you head for the capital or other site that they can't afford to lose...)
etc.

The player could always override these at contact with orders like yours, but wouldn't have to.

------------------
Mark Everson
Project lead for The Clash of Civilizations
(That means I do the things nobody else wants to do )
This Radically different civ game needs your suggestions and/or criticism of our design.
Check our our Forum right here at Apolyton...

[JimC]

Some poor bastard(s) - myself included - are going to have to code the AI for all of the above.

It would be nice to have some implementation ideas mixed in with the abstract ones - the actual programming of the AI isn't due to start for ages yet, but the more solid material I have to think about the better.

I don't think that the combined hierarchical / genetic approach to wargame AI has ever been explored in much depth before, so I have no idea what will work and what won't.

It all sounds within the realms of possibility....

Jim

[F_Smith]

For 'Release One' (or whatever it'll be called) we'll probably only have the 'strategic' level. The 'Tactical' map and combatwill be added.

I hope that helps . . .

[manurein]

I'm not sure a tactical combat system is compatible with a MP game. I mean, what if you have five combats in a turn, and each combat takes longer than the turn itself? The other players will have to wait, and they will have a clue someone is fighting...
I agree and the army vs. unit model, where all orders are given to the general who handles one army. I think something would ease things : a "reaction phase", where the general of an army which encounterd something unawaited could gather new orders - if the distance between the army and the leader/player and the communication tech level allow it.
I also think - it is a bit related to the combat system - the geographic location of the leader/ruler at a given time should be managed. For example, it is important in ancient times, if the leader fights an important battle with its army it could give it a strong morale - and eventually tactical bonus. Of course, this would give the enemy the occasion to capture or kill the leader, with all the consequences on the battle and the civ... In the meantime, the absence of the leader in the capital could result in good conditions for a revolution...

[F Smith]

I share your concerns, but I think we can make it work.

First, limit each player to personally controlling only one combat per turn.

Second, make sure each combat is timed, and over in about 10 minutes. The next turn can pick up in the middle of the battle . . .

Third, by making the 'Strategic' part of the game 'turn based', and timed (say, 5 mins).

This should keep people mostly in sync.

[Jamie]

Why does tac. combat have to be real time?
I hate rts games but I love the tac combat in games like moo or moo2. The best tac. combat game I ever played was Master of Magic. Does anyone here remember that game?
It had a small map and 3d units all turn based.