Announcement

**Mark_Everson** · May 30, 1999, 14:54

Druid2:

I've only had a few moments to look it over, so I can't make any comments on the contents. That said, you've done an Enormous amount of work. Thanks again for taking this on. I'd like to see how good you are with something you're really into! (Note to others, Druid2 isn't into military stuff.) Anyway, we have no detailed unit list. You could steal one from the Civ3 units forum as a start . I'll get back to you on the proposal when I have a chance to look it over tonite.

Thanks again,
Mark

I'm Baaaack...

Ok, I'm just going to put items under either major or minor headings as I run across them.

Major Things:

I am actually hoping for the number of military phases per turn (m) to be 1 at least until WWII-type technology. As you say, playtesting will tell.

Facing is more appropriate IMO for a tactical system if we do one.

Communication depending upon distance from capital should probably be at player option.

Orders Phase is really good, but the interface people are gonna hate you

Minor Points:

Commanders have stats, but they should not necessarily be known to the player.

"[The entire mobilization, movement and combat of WWII was contained in less than 1 Clash "turn".]" - Actually this isn't right. In ancient times the turns will probably be 5-10 years long. But in Civ-ish fashion by the time WWII tech runs around turns will probably be yearly or even seasonal.

One point on orders. I picture support as being an order that isn't incompatible with movement. FE two columns advancing into enemy territory and supporting each other.

-Mark

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited May 30, 1999).]

**Druid2** · May 31, 1999, 00:10

Mark,

Hey, I'm not a Java programmer, so I'm not concerned about coding issues

Seriously, I *WOULD* like to hear about practicality issues that the Mil programmer(s) might raise.

Who *are* the Mil programmer(s) anyhow?

-------------
Points noted. I do not anticipate going back to revise anything until I have at least a full write up of all the blank spaces .... so, I guess I'll get to the revisions about Labor Day

[This message has been edited by Druid2 (edited May 31, 1999).]

**JimC** · May 31, 1999, 06:23

Well, I'm mainly doing AI coding, but most of my work is impossible to start until the game engine is actually up and running.

I'll pretty much be a 'generic programmer' until that time....

Jim

**Hrafnkell** · June 1, 1999, 00:24

Here are few minor points on your excellent model

[ Wait until (condition) ]
[ Wait n turns ]
I think that with the Wait until (condition) order should also include the condition of an enemy TF (of a given type) entering it´s ZoD. Also, for both these orders, once the conditions are met (or the number ot turns elapsed) then new orders (maybe termed Alternitive Order) are given the TF. Maybe this was your intention, but I thought best to mention it here.

[ Ambush ]
At first glance this order seems very powerful. It seems players would use this order almost exclusively. Is there some disadvantages to this order I don´t see?

[ Fortify and Defend ]
I feel that building fortifications should cost some money, especially if they´ll be intact after the AG that built it is gone. Fortifications were one of the most expensive military costs and IMO erecting defensive installations should be more costly. Maybe if players don´t pay anything the fortifications are considered field fortifications that will disapear once the AG that built it leaves the square. If players pay a set amount of money (the more the higher the fort level) then the fortifications become permament.

Supply Officers [SO]
I was just thinking that we could include special types of SOs, such as supply ships and fueling planes. Maybe it´s unneccesary, but, anyway, here it is.

MOVE PHASE
Here is one idea on how to handle movement: Each TF has an Initiative Rating, and the movement is performed in Initiative order, with the TF with highest Initiative going first and so on. For TFs with equal Initiative Rating they are moved in random order. The Initiative Rating is mainly based on the ZoD. As I think the ZoD will increase as the tech gets better there should be no need to tie the tech level of the TF into the Initiative Rating, it´s indirectly represented through the ZoD. Other factors that influence the Initiative Rating are: Leadership (Commanders have a Initiative Rating); Mobilization; Supply and perhaps some specific research projects. As AW (and probably NF) usually have higher ZoD than AG they usually go first, which I think is realistic.

**Red Prince** · June 1, 1999, 23:19

This design reminds me much of World in Flames, a game I bought but never played due to its complexity. It looks wonderful for a computer game, though. My thoughts after a quick reading:

Communication:
I personally think this is a brilliant aspect which could make war much more realistic according to era than anything I've seen yet. I do agree that it would be best used as a player option. My interest in it stems from AI defects in other games which allow human players a commanding advantage in deployment methods, which don't always change with the situation. This would level the playing field a bit, I think. Another possible application is to give the AI a minor cheat with it. Example: News of War in Northern Italy reaches AI controlled Rome in 5 turns, but Human controlled Paris (about the same distance from the action) in 6 or 7.

Commanders:
I can see this as a very useful strategic element, used properly. I imagine there would be a need for hundreds of commanders, though, and I'm not sure how individualized each could be. I would suggest, though, that if each has advantages, most should have drawbacks, too, similar to the Manager effects in Railroad Tycoon II or Soc Eng models in SMAC. A possible alternative would be categories for commenders, such as Aggressiveness, Strategic Ability, Loyalty, Decisiveness (all off the top of my head), which effect how his TF responds away from home while out of communication with the capital. If they are rated in any manner, I would suggest the players have a chart in the manual or something, access through the help screen maybe. It seems this might be too important to leave to chance, especially with the number that might be required and possible difficulty in replacing commanders from a distance.

Also, can commanders be killed in combat? If so, are there penalties specific to losing a commander? Perhaps no movement until the Capital gets word and sends a new one or promotes somebody? I actually think this might be a nifty little feature if communication is turned on - inability to replace commanders instantly.

Unit Types:
My only concern here is that most units should be more than window dressing. Civ II in particular had many lovely but useless units available. I know you aren't there yet, but it's always a concern.

More thoughts later, if and as they come. As far as the overall combat and movement goes, it all looks very sound to me. Very well thought out.

Thanks

------------------
-Red

**Druid2** · June 2, 1999, 09:02

Red Prince: I like the idea of being able to kill commanders during battle. Could happen as a % chance during any battle, of course, *or* it give you a new reason to add a spy/commando element to your TF. It autmoatically gets a chance to infiltrate and provide better info and/or kill the enemy commander.

Mark: Why not have the Commander's stats available to the player? He's going to know the stats of every other element of the TF, and of the TF itself, and he's going to have access to the .txt file where the original data is stored. And it's an AI cheat otherwise, since the AI players will [we hope] make good descisions, not just random ones.

-------------------------------------------
I hope everyone who comes in here also goes to the top to reread the original post. The update info and etc is done up there.

[This message has been edited by Druid2 (edited June 02, 1999).]

**Mark_Everson** · June 2, 1999, 11:02

Druid2:

I have the misfortune of being at work, so I'll only answer the immediate question. I'll look over the new stuff as soon as I can.

Thanks to Kull for pitching in here!

The idea on commander stats was that they are not known to Anyone before used in battle. The player (and AI) should know a commander's 'expected' values, but these can be Very different from actual campaign leadership. That's all I meant. So for instance Abe Lincoln pick McClellan (sp?) as his overall general, but finds out he's great at training armies, but can't use them to fight well. (simplification) So finally he picks Grant who turns out to be capable... Before they were actually tested McClellan looks much better on paper than Grant.

However this amount of effort would only be used for the top few commanders.

Hrafnkell: Good suggestions, but why do we need inititative in a simultaneous system?

-Mark

BTW could the MTGS (Medium Tougher Guys with Spears) be equipped with optional tactical nukes? :J

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited June 02, 1999).]

**jacobo** · June 2, 1999, 18:00

On the subject of Military how do you forsee attacking cities/populated areas?

For example would one be able to besiege cities/fortress/castles?

**Druid2** · June 4, 1999, 23:21

Mark, we will use initiative, internally, because the combat cannot really be simultaneous. SOMEbody has to shot first. And I'd rather have a reason to pick B instead of A, instead of just a random determination.

I dont forsee any reason why the player will ever see it or know about it or use it, but the combat resolution logic will use it.

Same thing with "Face" of the defending unit. The Player could use it, but mostly it will get used by the AI, and will make possible some effective sneak attacks by commandos and etc.

[This message has been edited by Druid2 (edited June 04, 1999).]

**Mark_Everson** · June 5, 1999, 10:57

Druid:

Good job on getting all this stuff together in record time. Most of it looks good to me, so, as usual, you'll only get to hear the complaints .

Note that a given TF will only be the ATF once/segment, but it may be DTF several times, if attacked by multiple HTF.

Perhaps just clarification is needed.
I had assumed combat takes place between All units in a given square. At least the mental picture I'd had was that a DTF (or ATF) could fight twice Only if it were forced to retreat from its previous square after the battle, and another hostile was there waiting for it.
Is this your view, or do you have a different one? I also address this point below in a different way.

Mark, we will use initiative, internally, because the combat cannot really be simultaneous. SOMEbody has to shot first. And I'd rather have a reason to pick B instead of A, instead of just a random determination.

(We may be arguing a very small issue if I misunderstand your comment. But it could be a Big issue so I will elaborate so we can see where we are.)
I disagree. At the individual level, of course, someone must fire the first shot, but in the vast majority of battles both sides are pretty much doing things at the same time. Initiative is required in alternating-phase-based systems, because By Definition in those systems someone must fire first. This is a System limitation which I thought we could overcome.
The proposed combat system that I outlined in people.mw.mediaone.net/markeverson/clash_combat.htm Is simultaneous, and I think it works ok. Now initiative Does have a place. For example, the ultimate limit of good initiative is surprise, which should certainly give bonuses. Initiative could be a bonus of some sort to the side that has it. But IMO it should not be the case that the side with the initiative completes an attack first without the other side being able to do anything other than defend. (Perhaps I am misunderstanding your drift here, and you didn't mean that... If so, ignore the previous statement )

In a similar vein, you have attack and defensive strength of units in the proposal. Does this mean you intend to go in the direction of a Civ2-type system where sides trade shots in sequence? A's attack vs B's defence, and then vice versa? Or is the offensive vs defensive strength meant in another context. I'm just trying to prevent our having different base assumptions about how the system works before things get too far...

On the Supply modifiers you have. IMO these are kind of arbitrary if I read them correctly. For Example:
"TR3 [Road] is within ZOD and connects to friendly base/city: ESR=110% BSR" That means to me (and that may not have been your intent) that if I have a military unit that connects by road Of Any Length back home I am basically in supply. This is just plain wrong. I really think its better to just let the supply officers handle it, and give the player guidelines on where they can or can't likely send an army depending on the technology. The supply officers will enforce that in anything before the modern age, land-based supply can at best be traced for something like 200miles out of a city/supply depot. Now, for game balance and fun purposes we may decide to curtail part of the realism in the supply system. But that's a decision for the future.

-Mark

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited June 05, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited June 05, 1999).]

**Blade Runner** · June 5, 1999, 16:27

Druid2,

(for the IX. point)

We can solve a common problem of the Civ games easily.
My problem is: if I have a unit this unit has a fix number for attack and defend. I think if we use a matrix with all the units we can change the system to a more flexible (but maybe a littlebit harder to balance) system. We can fill the tank attack points against different kind of weapons. i.e. the tank is very powerfull against light armored untis but sitting duck against attack helicopters, but is not mean that the helicopter is more powerfull. I think this attack matrix system can help to us to avoid the common problem of the CTP players. (I'm one of them.) In CTP an ancient group of legions ALWAYS win against a tank! They use fix attack point, so they cannot fix this problem. We have a chance now to kill this very anoying problem forever!

It is just an idea,

Blade Runner

**Mark_Everson** · June 5, 1999, 16:40

Blade Runner:

That's an interesting idea. However, since our system is TF-based, the idiosyncracies of the individual units shouldn't be as important an issue for our Strategic combat system. If we do the tactical one, where the units actually would attack each other, this sort of thing would be more relevant IMO. But don't worry, the musketeers will get massacred in Clash .

-Mark

**Blade Runner** · June 5, 1999, 16:54

Mark,

If we would like to get a model of a real weapon systems we need to do this or something similar. In the real world there is a kind of circles. The tank can kill the SAM, the SAM can kill the attackcopter, and the attackcopter can kil the tank. Nobody can produce this kind of circles with fix attack and defence values. (How can A > B and B > C and C > A?)

Blade Runner

**Mark_Everson** · June 5, 1999, 17:30

First, we already have the Basic effects you're talking about in this case. Only air or anti-aircraft units can kill airpower. At least this was what was in the last model I saw that talked about it... I can't recall if its in the current proposal. If it isn't it should be .

I agree with your general thinking, but this is a Tactical effect. You can't send in an 'army' of Just attack choppers to do anything, because the tanks just Hide. The attack choppers can have the Devastating effect of completely eliminating the Mobility of the tanks, making them ineffective. But if there is no other force to back up the choppers its all for nothing. No militarily significant objective can be achieved (unless the tanks Need to get somewhere else). It is only as a combined force that you can really accomplish Anything militarily IMO. The present case in Serbia does appear to be an exception. In this case, strategic and tactial air attack alone achieving the objective. But we'll have to see how that plays out to be sure.

But anyway, if everyone (esp the dukes'o'Military) thinks its an important point, we could include it. I just personally have my doubts about it, and things are certainly complicated enough in the game models as they are .

Announcement

Military / Combat Model

Military / Combat Model

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment