Tweet
I tried to put the whole doc here, but it wouldn't fit. Here's a link to the whole thing. http://people.mw.mediaone.net/markev...ash_combat.htm
Below I've appended the Introduction. There are no details in the intro, it just sketches out the system as it stands. Please go to the link for the whole story with tables of information and many more details.
Let me know what you think, good or bad...
-Mark
Proposed Clash Combat System
We're trying to bring to Clash a more realistic combat system than what
is available today civ-type games. However, clearly the realism needs
to be balanced with playability. I'm putting this up here now so
that people can look at it and criticize the general system, or certain
elements in it. I don't think that the actual decisions the player
has to make will turn out to be very complicated in this system.
Even though the system is complicated, the decisions should be relatively
simple. I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on that issue.
There are also a lot of sub-areas of the system. If it is felt that
the whole system is too complex, various of these can be simplified or
eliminated from the system.
This piece of my proposed system will be heavy on combat, and not give
too many details about strategic issues. My thoughts on those things
will have to follow shortly. First, I'll give an overview of the
general system including the strategic elements, and then focus in on some
high-level specifics for the combat system.
The system features the following elements:
Below I've appended the Introduction. There are no details in the intro, it just sketches out the system as it stands. Please go to the link for the whole story with tables of information and many more details.
Let me know what you think, good or bad...
-Mark
Proposed Clash Combat System
We're trying to bring to Clash a more realistic combat system than what
is available today civ-type games. However, clearly the realism needs
to be balanced with playability. I'm putting this up here now so
that people can look at it and criticize the general system, or certain
elements in it. I don't think that the actual decisions the player
has to make will turn out to be very complicated in this system.
Even though the system is complicated, the decisions should be relatively
simple. I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on that issue.
There are also a lot of sub-areas of the system. If it is felt that
the whole system is too complex, various of these can be simplified or
eliminated from the system.
This piece of my proposed system will be heavy on combat, and not give
too many details about strategic issues. My thoughts on those things
will have to follow shortly. First, I'll give an overview of the
general system including the strategic elements, and then focus in on some
high-level specifics for the combat system.
The system features the following elements:
- [*]
Simultaneous Movement
[*]
Army Groups
[*]
Military Power Levels that give the right combat Power for units of various
ages
[*]
Combined Arms Effects
[*]
Reasonable Combat Outcomes
[*]
More Strategic combat system, with a distinction between strategic and
combat movement rates
[*]
Effects Of Supply
[*]
mobilization and demobilization effects
[*]
Good AI
[*]
Football-Play Type Simplified Interface for those who don't want to micro-manage
combat[/list]
Simultaneous movement is good both for practical reasons (in multiplayer
everyone can do turns at once) and "stylistic" ones (it makes planning
much less "surgical" than games in the genre). I think simultaneous
movement gives a lot of good feel to the game with a relatively small amount
of resulting problems. One thing it does require is a "support" order
system so that one army / column can support another "automatically" when
it is attacked (a unit/army could also have orders to support/protect a
square its not in). IMO we don't want the player always questioned
about "mid-move" issues (I would not allow the player to modify their movement
slightly before it is implemented; that seems to me more of a field commander
call rather than overall strategy). However, some way to include
"new" information gotten from scouts during actual movement would need
to be included to make the automatic last-minute corrections that a field
commander would. One other issue that arises while using simultaneous
movement is that the distance moved by units in a given turn can't be too
great. If the distance a unit can move is too large then it becomes
increasingly likely that some information would have become available in
mid-turn that would have changed the movement orders. This would
be very clumsy, and annoying for the player. For anything more than
a few squares per turn I think we will need to sub-divide the turn into
phases.
An Army Group (name and writeup by Andrew W.) is a collection
of units, built individually and combined into one force. They would
have a strategic movement speed of the slowest unit, and an overall strength
rating, that takes into effect the combined arms capabilities of the units.
(Ie cavalry gives you a mobility bonus, artillery gives range weapon bonuses,
and bonuses against defenses, bombers might ignore ground defenses and
so on.) Individual units can be removed from the group and added at will.
For example a civ might have Army Group 1 with the following units.
2 x Cavalry
4 x Phalanx
3 X Skirmishers
An Army Group with only 1 or 2 types of units would be somewhat limited
from a "combined arms" standpoint as some units are more effective against
some, and weaker against others. Diversity is generally needed to make
a successful Army Group. This concept will lead to more realistic
handling of armies, and speed up game play, since you don't have to move
dozens of units individually. Enemy Army Groups could only be spotted
if they are adjacent to one of your AGs or squares, or by scouting (spies,
planes, satellites etc). The contents of the AGs can only be found
out during battles or by spies (though sometimes they may get it wrong...)
If AGs meet while they are moving, and depending upon their orders, they
would battle. After the battle concluded, they may be able to continue
their projected movement. During and after combat, individual units
within the AG will take damage and/or give ground based on their individual
roles in the combat. (And of course with a heavy random element).
For instance in Napoleonic warfare troops that give a "shock attack" advantage
to the army would tend to be heavily damaged in "even" battles. In
even battles that are lost, those shock troops would sustain Very heavy
losses.
Military power as a function of technology is modeled through
the use of a technology levels system. In addition to having a combat
strength, each unit has a technology level associated with it. (Perhaps
this will be split into offensive and defensive technology levels, as discussed
later) When the technology levels of the combatants differ, they're
effective power per individual diverges exponentially. Specific examples
will be cited later. To illustrate the point, Napoleonic infantry
(with muskets) are about 28 times as effective as a similar number men
in, say, an ancient phalanx formation. However, the civ experiencing
the humiliating defeats of its phalanx-based military would IMO be stimulated
to change the structure of its combat units. After repeatedly fighting,
and getting demolished by, Napoleonic infantry they'd change their fighting
style so that they were much less of an easy target for the muskets.
(They'd probably lose the pikes too, since such long pikes are virtually
useless unless the unit is in tight formation.) In this way the ancient-technology
army could be using a much better "defensive" technology while still using
ancient hand-to-hand weapons. The ancient civ would still be at a
disadvantage, but its new tactics will have bought it significant advantage
with respect to its previous position in combat. Using novel approaches
to combat, the ancient troops might eventually have only a disadvantage
of about a factor of two.
Almost as important as the technological level of the armies is their
level of training, morale, operational support, leadership, cultural value
placed on the military, and other factors. I can't say for sure at
the moment how many of these we will model, but we will certainly include
an overall combat effectiveness value (CEV) for each civ. I have
taken this particular term from Dupuy. Its sums up all the myriad
factors that contribute to in army's success. Historically, certain
armies have had success far beyond that expected given their manpower and
weapons systems. CEV is a way to account for these effects.
The CEV will act as a multiplier of the military power of a given unit,
either increasing or decreasing it from its "expected" value. This
CEV will not be constant for a civ, but will change over time due to both
player actions, and factors beyond his or her control. When a new
weapons technology is used, the CEV with it will be significantly worse
than before. As the generals use the new technology, and find its
strengths and limitations in battle, the CEV will improve. New technologies
and cultural improvements such as writing, or the telegraph can also positively
influenced a civ's CEV.
After technology differences, another important feature is the use of
combined
arms effects, since the most successful armies are often the most flexible.
An Army composed of infantry, mobile units (horsemen, or tanks), ranged
weapons (from bows to artillery), and airpower and seapower if available,
is stronger and more flexible than the sum of its parts. For instance,
mobile unit effects are usually devastating on an open battlefield, whereas
the mobile units are almost useless on extremely rough terrain. Also,
a significant superiority in the power of mobile, ranged attack, and air
forces will give disproportionate advantage to the side that has such an
advantage. I have a simple system sketched out to handle these effects,
although it probably needs refinement. In addition to combined arms
effects there will be the usual sort of bonuses for the presence of fortifications,
armies dug in, terrain, etc.
The system should generate reasonable combat outcomes in terms
of casualties and territory taken. The character of a combat, and
its outcome, will depend on the missions of the armies involved as well
as their strengths. Armies will have missions determined by the player
or AI. For instance, the mission on a given front might be to "destroy
enemy army" or take X strategic city/territory, or destroy infrastructure,
or even "make a pain of yourselves, till they buy us off". Defensive
orders might be: defend at all costs, roll-back in order with a scorched
earth policy, or 'get the H out of there'. Depending on the missions
of the two armies and their relative forces, more or less casualties will
be sustained by each side, and ground may or may not be taken. Since
this is a strategic game, I am inclined to make little effort to model
individual battles. The outcome in a single square might consist
of one or a few sharp battles, or a continuous campaign. In order to produce
a little more variety in the battle outcomes we might break down the contest
in a square into say three phases. This would allow for better modeling
of morale and other effects. If the first phase were a clear-cut
victory, the defeated side would try to retreat to avoid annihilation,
and another battle might or might not be fought. The player IMO,
should only see the outcome in terms of ground gained or lost and casualties
sustained. However, the player should be able to get a description of the
battle and what went right or wrong after the fact. Since societal
factors will actually influenced the success of armies in Clash the player
may actually be able to do something with the detailed information of one
went on in a particular battle. Casualties will typically be of order 25%,
but vary by a great amount depending on the specifics of the battle.
Battle will generally not be "to the death". Frequently a defeated
unit will retreat. Only if the attacker has a sufficiently dense
net around the unit will a defeat in combat be ultimately fatal.
I think civ-type games can use a more strategic combat system.
The use of Army groups instead of large numbers of individual units will
help significantly in this regard. For the case of ancient armies,
even in a micro-management mode, the player will have to move very few
"counters". Modern armies will be significantly larger, and more
difficult to micro-manage than ancient ones, but still should be smaller
in the number of counters than the equivalent in other games in the genre.
Because we are including the economic effects of keeping an army fully
mobilized, the decisions of the level of mobilization of forces will be
an important strategic one for the player. A relatively smaller standing
army will have beneficial effects for the civ's economy, but will leave
the civ more vulnerable to a rapid attack. Also, the system will
make a distinction between movement in and out of combat. Movement
across safe territory will be about three times as rapid as movement in
combat circumstances. Unopposed movement in enemy or contested territory
will be about twice as fast as combat movement. These specific numbers
may change due to current suggestions or play testing, but I think the
concept is very valid. (Thanks to team members for this suggestion.)
The necessity to supply military units with provisions and ammunition
plays a very large part in their capabilities. I think we can actually
handle supply in Clash without significantly hassling the player.
The basic idea is to use dedicated merchants (already need to be coded
anyway) to supply the troops. All the player need do is say how much
money they're willing to spend to supply x front. The merchant/supply
manager does the rest. You would build essentially a special class
of merchant that would try to purchase goods from the surrounding area
(or home, if transportation is good enough). This supply unit would travel
with large armies and provide feedback to the army commander about whether
(and at what price) it would be able to supply the army if it went to spot
X. Units that were not fully supplied would fight at reduced effectiveness,
or have the need to forrage for supplies, reducing movement. Mongol
Horsemen could probably forrage fairly effectively, modern armored divisions
hardly at all. Using a merchant that goes out and buys supplies for you
has the advantage that the player doesn't have to orchestrate the supply
itself, but only decide if the price of supply is worth it. A bonus
of this supply system is that supply lines can be attacked. This
allows proper modeling of a modern envelopment battle, one of the coolest
martial activities known to man ;-). In addition the supply system
would give a lot of correct flavor in terms of Where large armies could
go historically, with little loss in smoothness of gameplay.
Mobilization and demobilization effects aren't completely thought
out yet, but I think we need them. One thing games in the genre tend
to miss is the enormous cost of waging war. Demobilization of most
of a civs troops when the civ isn't at war is a natural response to this.
Active units should get paid in money at probably something like 1/2 the
average PCI (per capita income) for the civ. Mercenaries should get
paid a lot, maybe twice the PCI. Exactly how much mercenaries get
paid will probably depend on the market for troops. Non-mercenary
units can be put on reserve status. The people in the unit will be
added to the local economy wherever they are demobilized. Reserves'
skill levels will decline rapidly unless trained. Training would
cost money, something like 1/5 of the salary active units draw. Reserves
could be mobilized anytime. On the turn they are mobilized, they
would just sit in the square where they were de-mobilized, but can defend.
Good AI is really a different subject from the game design, which
is what I want to get at here.
The football-play type simplified interface relies on good AI.
I'll talk about both of these at another time.
. Can you stick some crude numbers on the particular areas you cite for different periods of history? We'll of course have to cut them in half because of your obvious bias 
Comment