Military / Combat Model

[Mark_Everson]

Druid:

Well, you got me there. OK, lets shoot for alpha 3.35

[Rebel]

Mark:
Anymore anything over Alpha 3.0 is listed as Beta.

Rebel

[This message has been edited by Rebel (edited June 09, 1999).]

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Mark et al, having finally finished going through the Combat Model, here are some comments, in rough order according to the model:

A. Designations
The size of military unit is going to have to be either abstracted or represent different thing sin different periods. Ancient military forces varied from a few hundred (hunter-gatherer raidng parties) to a few thousand, with only the Hydraulic (Irrigation) Empires getting up to 10s of thousands regularly. All of these would fit into a small portion of a 100x100 km area. The Brigade is a totally incorrect term for your basic Ground Piece, because a brigade from the 17th century to today has always meant a force of 3 - 10,000 men which is all one combat arm: infantry, cavalry, dragoons, artillery, etc. To get your “combined arms” flavor of a piece that is composed of several different ‘units’, the only term that covers both the entire time period and the area of a tile would be Arm, abbreviated AR.
Where more specific designations could be adopted is in defining the individual weapons-units that compose that Army (or Navy Fleet, or Air Wing - better term for the orbital/space piece is Space Force or SF). Thus, the Army could be composed of:
Phalanx: 2000 man units of
organized spearmen
Legion: 3-5000 man units of
organized spearmen and swordsmen
Tuman: 10,000 man cavalry
(Mongolian)
Battle: 1/3 to 1/5 of the total
force- the Medieval ‘Division’
Regiment: 1000-3000 man gunpowder
cavalry or infantry unit
Brigade: 3 - 10,000 man gunpowder
unit
Division: 10,000-20,000 man modern
unit
Corps: up to 100,000 man modern
( musket and later) unit

A Force Multiplier could be the degree of internal organization of the Army: a proper chain of command between/among units would affect the speed of movement (organized use of the road network), speed of reacting to enemy movement, speed of mounting attacks (initiative), and ability to react to flank or rear attacks (ambushes).

Time/Movement/Orders and Combat
The system has a basic flaw which is insurmountable within the basic Civ game concept. The problem is that Civ is not even a Strategic Game, it is in the realm of Grand Strategy or Evolution. With discreet game turns that each cover a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 50, there is no realistic way to show the actual sequence of orders and military movements within the turn: far, far too much can happen within any single turn.
Therefore, any combat system has to be a compromise, and I suggest that the way to go is to use ‘Perceptual Compression’ to the system. The best example of this is in a set of very popular historical miniatures rules for WWII battles used in Britain, called “Rapid Fire”. All the figures are mounted individually, and act like single soldiers. But, the 8-10 man squads actually each represent an entire company, and each man represents 15+ men. Thus, you play the game as if you were a platoon leader with a few squads, but you are representing a brigade-level action. It works because the visual representation or perception is that of the smaller, more intimate battle, even though it is actually very representative.
I think that is what the Combat System will have to do. You cannot realistically portray the delay between issuing orders and getting results in Civ, because at no time in any Civ game is such a delay more than a fraction of the Turn Length. Even Magellan’s Round The World Cruise (3 years) or Necho’s Round Africa voyage (3+ years) both took place (1500sAD, 500sBC, respectively) entirely in 1/2 to 1/12 of a single Turn - and they were exceptionally long endeavors, even for their period. In modern times the delay between ordering and knowing what happens is measured at most in weeks (Europe 17th century) to hours (1960+). Dividing the segments up that fine would make an unplayable or unrunnable game.

So, let’s use nomenclature, and maybe even graphics, that relate to much smaller units and a faster time scale than is actually happening. It can still be much closer than the current CivII/CtP model, but it will never be accurate or exact in a Civ game. The graphics should include individual (or small groups) with the characteristic weapons and equipment for the individual units (which would be the ‘building blocks’ of the pieces) and On Map icons of larger units: masses of marching men, horses, ships, aircraft, etc, with identifying banners flying overhead to identify them. The nomenclature could change with the Tech/Cultural Level of the force, and even be specific to the Civilization. You can get a lot of milage with gamers out of letting them maneuver Armies composed of:
Ancient: Greek Phalanxes
Roman Legions
Nomad/Barbarian Warbands
Turkish Ordos (original of
the word “Horde”)
Zulu Impis
Zenobia’s Squadron of the
Persian Fleet
Medieval: Knightly Banners and Battles
Spanish Tercios
Gunpowder: Swedish Brigades
European Divisions (all
nations) and modern Brigades,
Divisions, and Corps

If you’ve got the room within the program files, both the Pieces and the subdivisions could be named or indicated:
Legion X of the Legions of the West
(Rome 100AD)
The Light Division of Wellington’s Army
of the Pyranees (1814AD)
V Corps of the Army of the Potomac (1863)
Collingwood’s Advance Division of
Nelson’s Fleet (1805AD)
21st Panzer Division of Panzer Army
Africa (1942)
Task Force 34.1 (Battleships) of Halsey’s
Fleet (1944)
5th Fighter Corps of the 8th Air Army
(USSR, 1943)

This would also allow the Units - each specific to a weapons/Tech level - to have separate morale levels and identities, and be ‘swapped’ among Armies/Fleets. The Civilization could have a Guards unit, or several, with exceptional morale/abilities and specialized units with a real ‘color’ to them. This, I think, would be a real sales and playing kick to a lot of gamers, even though it is almost entirely “mind candy”.

As in most cases, the option should be to Default: AI names or a blank field for the Gamer to name the Unit/Task Force. I’d suggest including a set of ‘sample’ units/forces from historical forces. Most Civilizations have examples from a variety of periods that could be included. Another method would be to use historical ‘tags’ or designations on the weapons/equipment combinations, so that an organized unit of spearmen, for example, would have a pop-up:
Phalanx (Ancient)
Schiltron (Medieval)
Pike Block (Renaissance)

Now to specifics:

F. TF Elements:
The ability of TFs to cooperate is dependant on Tech Level (communcations), internal organization, staffs or lack of them, commander’s abilities, and the terrain. The likelihood that “the best defender in the TF will be available” is based on the Recon ability of the TF (did they see the attack coming), and the Agility of the TF - can they react in time, move the unit(s) to where they’re needed, and formulate a plan of action (staffs, commander again)

G. Combat Elements

The Combat Elements or ‘Units’ have to reflect not only the weapons and equipment, but also the internal organization, command, and cohesion of the group - if any. There is simply a huge difference between a group of armored spear and swordsmen who are a Noble Gallic Warband and the same weapons and equipment applied to form a Roman Legion. For one thing, the Warband will be virtually without training and equipment costs, because the nobles train as individuals and provide their own gear - as long as the Society has the Excess Wealth to support a Nobility (a point to remember in the Economics model). The Legion requires extensive Government investment in the equipment, recruiting and training of the men, but the result is a permanent Unit which can be maintained without disrupting the Societial Economics, because the members of the Legion are Excess to production requirements. The proviso is exact: you cannot have units requiring discipline and long-term training unless your Economy can aford to have those people Non Productive for most of their adult lives.
Standing Armies are a product of Wealthy Civilizations.

Therefore, for example, I’d divide the AG Ground Units somewhat as follows:
Warband (spears, swords, perhaps some
archers)
Phalanx (organized spearmen with sub-
divisions)
Legion (organized swordsmen and spearmen
with sub-divisions)
Foot (or Fusiliers, or Musketeers -
organized gunpowder foot troops)
Infantry (organized with sub-divisions,
armed with rifles to modern
automatic weapons)
Archers (organized or not: the English
Longbowmen were very well
organized, and it was the
chief source of their effect, not
the weapon itself)
Artillery (this generic term has been
used since the medieval catapults
and Trebuchet.Were only
organized long after gunpowder
Bombards and Cannon came into use)
Rocketry (modern battlefield rockets,
organized into Regiments or
Brigades or Divisions)
Light Cavalry, Chariots (covers all the
unarmored, usually armed with
spears, lances, or bows)
Armored Cavalry (equipped with a spear =
Cataphract, with a lance= Knight)
Hussars, Cuirassiers, Dragoons, Mounted
Rifles (all terms for gunpowder
cavalry)
Tanks, Armor, Panzers (all terms for
armored battle vehicles 1917 to
1999)
Scout (including hired Barbarians, a very
common practice since ancient times)
Light Troops (covers Roman Velites in
200BC to British Riflemen in 1815AD)
Recon (modern ‘scouts’ on the ground, may
be foot/helicopter or light armored)
Commandos, Rangers, Special Forces: all very specialized units with both scouting abilities and ‘sneak attack’ capabilities.
Battle Aircraft (the original term for
Ground Attack , used 1917 to 1941)
Fighter Bomber (a mixed breed, both air
superiority and ground support
capability)
Attack Helicopter

In the Water Units the progressions don’t jibe with history.

Bireme, Penteconter, Trireme - were all ancient warships, 0 carrying capacity, limited by Tech to close-range, inshore fighting
River Boat - would be a more modern ‘inshore’ or riverine ship
Longboat was an open-ocean version of the oared ship in the first line.
Cog and Carrack were the first sailing ships that combined Cargo capacity with Combat: a Cog was also the first ship known to carry cannon.
Frigate was a development of the Cog-Carrack: all the oared ships were a dead end Technically: gunpowder and modern warships all developed from the Cog-Carrack sailing line
Ship of the Line was the ultimate sailng-gunpowder naval weapon
Ironclad represents three naval developments: iron alloy armor, steam power, and the exploding shell gun. Armor and steam were both applied to wooden ships (“Steam Frigates”) but the exploding shell gun made wooden ships utterly obsolete in combat.
By using Ironclad to represent all the late 19th century warships, the modern progression becomes:
Ironclad- Dreadnaught - Battleship
Steam Frigate - Ironclad - Cruiser
Ironclad - Destroyer (a response to the Torpedo as a weapon, by the way)
Submarine
Aircraft Carrier (the first ones were modified from Cruisers or Dreadnaughts)
Naval Air - the first were modified regular air Ground Attack and Fighter
Helicopter - not just anti-sub, also anti-missile defense and Surface Attack

Engineers: good historical terms to throw in would be Pioneer Troops or Sappers.
They not only construct, but they also traditionally provide Special Attributes for attacking fortresses or fortifications - in which situations they usually take most of the casualties

Medical Unit.
The presence of any kind of Medical Support has to be related somehow to Tech or Social advances. In ancient armies, about the only ones with Medical services were the Assyrians, Romans, Alexander’s Macedonians, and the Moslem Arabs. They disappeared completely in the Fuerdal armies, didn’t reappear until the Drilled Gunpowder armies of the 18th century. Napoleon’s Chief Surgeon was the one who started the ‘modern’ medical and ambulance services, should be a Tech advance there to greatly improve survival rate of wounded.

Transport:
TRUK: wagons and trucks are not primarily to improve mobility, but to make possible or improve the supply. Wagons were only used to improve troop mobility a few times (Napoleon’s Guards road across France on wagons a couple of times, but never in a combat zone). Trucks were used to Motorize units in WWI, so that’s very early. Biggest use of trucks, though, is to Motorize Artillery so that it can keep up with the infantry: big guns pulled by horses are really, really slow.
TRAL : Air Transports should need a specific Tech or Improvement (Application of Tech?) to carry anything heavier than foot infantry. Sequence should be:
Basic TRAL: Infantry, paratroops
Medium TRAL: Infantry, paratroops, artillery (towed)
Heavy TRAL: Infa ntry, paratroops, artillery (towed or motorized), armor

Note: all of the time effects in the Sections on Command (loss of commander), Orders, Communication, etc are off by orders of magnitude. If the minimum turn is a year, loss of a commander who not paralyse an Army or Fleet for the entire rest of the year, let alone 50 years. All of these will have to be looked at very carefully so that, on the one hand, the penalties are noticeable to the gamer and on the other hand, they are not ridiculous in terms of the game’s time scale.

Whoof! This is taking more space, so I'll divide it into two posts. More later...

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Continuation, or Once more into the slings and errors of Outraged Fortune...

IV. Orders Phase
Defend Values:
The usual rule of thumb was that the defense is three times stronger than the attack: that you need a 3:1 margin to advance. In fact, often in WWII you needed 5:1 or better to advance. The value against attacks from the front should probably be a minimum of 50% BUT 0 or no more than 5% against rear attacks, with negative values against rear attacks if you are completely unprepared to defend.
Building forts should take segments of the turn to build. Otherwise you are saying it will take 10 years minimum to fortifiy a sector: unless you are building the Maginot Line there, that is completely ‘out of the ballpark’: the Russians fortified an area of approximately 5 x 3 times (game terms) at Kursk in 3 months that was as strong a field fortification as ever seen in warfare. Of course, they had lots and lots of labor and engineer units - take that as you maximum and work back from there for times and capabilities.

Ambush: Ambush TFs taking double damage from the air is ridiculous: they are in combat formation, after all. A better rule swould be that if the ambush is detected, the initiative passes completely to the enemy force. That way being in Ambush mode has a negative or positive payoff, depending on how alert the enemy is and in what posture he is advancing.

V. Move Phase
What happens should depend a great deal on the Orders given to the TFs. If two opposing forces both have Preserve or Probe orders (see below), therre will not be much combat between them compared to a set of TFs with Attack orders. Some Commanders will modify their orders whewther you want them to or not, and the Player may not know exactly how they will modify them until the situation arrives. This is a good way to replicate people like Patton or Manstein or the Duke of Marlborough, who cold make beter decisions on the spot than the people who sent them out, and also commanders like McClellan, who was likely to turn any Attack Order into Preserve regardless of the Higher Commander’s wishes!

VI. Communication:
Strategic Orders. This dovetails with Orders Phase and Movement above.
Based on the problems of doing this sort of thing in Miniatures Rules, I suspect that you are going to have to limit the orders to certain Action Orders, each of which will be very carefully defined and which will be allowed to combine only in certain ways. For instance, the possible Action Orders could be:
Explore /Probe:
move in X direction with maximum
recon out
Defend/Preserve:
either move extra cautiously to
preserve your force, or stay in
place and defend/fortify an area
Build: Construct X at Y speed
Attack: move to contact enemy, take the initiative and destroy him
Subdue: Attack order against non-
military population
Loot: Attack Order against area
of terrain/country

VII. Mobilization:
Mobilization options are very, very dependant on Tech level and Social/Cultural elements. An advanced Bureaucratic State, like ancient Rome or any modern European Nation-State, can mobilize a large % of the population, and compensate for the loss of workers to a considerable degree. Fuedal, Pastoral economies, city states, etc, and especially nomadic/hunter groups canot mobilize anyone for any length of time without serious economic and social repercussions.
Equipment is provided by the Mobilized troops for much of history: no Greek city state every provided equipment to the phalanx, knights provided their own gear, and the militia/fyrd/national guard /yeomanry tradition of the English-speaking peoples all relied on the population providing their own weapons and equipment. The government can influence this (the English provided training time and areas in every village for archers by law), but can’t always be sure what, exactly, will show up on mobilizaton unless it has invested in a bureaucracy to keep track - and in many societal/governmental structures, that is impossible.

VIII. Supply
No army can be supplied at any distance over land before railroads. The only way to ship bulk goods like fodder and food is by (river)boat, ship, or to gather it from the countryside as you pass through: a Strategic/Move Order of Loot (which slow down movement).
Roads extend slightly the distance you can haul supplies by pack animal/wagon, but not much. Read van Crefeld’s “Supply in War” for details, but a wagon on a good road can supply for about 150-200 miles Maximum.
One way around the problem, used in the 18th century, was Depots: stock the supplies during peacetime at Strategic Locations (fortresses) and keep maneuvering within 200 miles of those locations. An army that (largely) lives off the land (Loots) can move faster than one waiting on supply, but it also takes casualties - French revolutionary and US Confederate armies were both notoriously good at pillaging the countryside, but both also suffered large losses of troops to straggling - effectively losing combat strength while keeping themselves supplied.
Historical title for Supply Officer (SO) for an Army was Quartermaster General (1600s to 1900s)

IX> TF & Elements Characteristics.

Let’s try something different. As described, the elements are variations of the hoary old boardgame concepts of Defense Factor, Attack Factor, Movement Factor, Other.
Instead, why not describe the TF and components by their Doctrinal effects. Each element/unit would be rated on:
Shock
Firepower
Flexibility

(this is partially based on Victor Hansen’s “Western Way of War”, to share the credit/blame!)
Shock is the ability to scare the enemy off: to break him by breaking his morale. Classic examples of Shock Units are the Phalanx and Knights, which aimed to charge in close and roll over the enemy, and early Tanks, which were designed simply to roll up and crush the enemy at short range so the infantry could round him up.
Firepower is fire power: shoot at him until he’s either dead or goes away. This is less decisive, because people tend to hide or dodge and it can take a long time to kill/wound enough of them. However, it can also support other elements by weakening the enemy before Shock forces hit him. Musket infantry started as almost pure Firepower, but by the 18th century some were becoming Flexible in that they would try to maneuver before shooting you up. Artillery is pure Firepower, all the time.
Flexibility is the ability of an element to combine fire and shock, or apply fire or shock at the correct time and place. The Roman Legion would be primarily a Flexibility force, because although it gets it’s effects primarily through Shock (closing with the enemy) it can maneuver to Shock you from the flanks or rear as well as the front.
Weapons and equipment are modified, and modify, the Doctrine. Having a unit with Doctrine: Firepower and equipping it with long spears would result in a unit with a Very Low Combat ability: the weapons have no firepower component to them. On the other hand, putting an archer on a horse gives him high ratings in both Firepower and Flexibility: he can maneuver rapidly to pour firepower into the enemy from selected points or all sides.
Combined Arms now becomes how many and how strong a set of factors you have in 2 or more of the Basic Doctrines. A force with strong values in Shock, Firepower, and Flexibility (a Panzer Division, for instance) will have big multipliers when operating in suitable terrain for its equipment, against a TF that has high values in only one Doctrine. Combining any two Doctrines in the same TF/Unit Element would be multiplyiing(Force Multipliers) effects: Shock and Flexibility like the Legion, Shock and Firepower like a well-drilled Musket Infantry unit with bayonets, Firepower and Flexibility like a Mongolian Tuman (horse archers)

X. Combat Units

How are these going to be defined? Traditionally in Civ games they were defined entirely by their weapons and equipment. This is insufficient, as I’ve pointed out in other Posts elsewhere. A bunch of spearmen is not a Phalanx, which had internal organization and command & control. A bunch of swordsmen is not a Legion, and a bunch on horseback with lances are not Knights. Byzantine Cataphracts were as heavily armored, yet the Byzantines remarked that a Frankish (European) Knight would “ride through the walls of Constantinople” - there was a difference in Doctrine that overrode the similarities in equipment.
This will probably require that not only Tech advances be used to define when certain units can be formed/built, but also Social or Cultural Advances/changes. To keep using Ancient examples, a Phalanx requires men with the time to train, and even if a government provides the armor and spears to a bunch of subsistance farmers, they will not have the time to train with them into an organized, drilled Phalanx without starving to death. Phalanxes arose when the civ had a large middle class with the money to provide their own metal armor and weapons, and the time to train with them. A Citizenry advance, perhaps?
One other thing to keep in mind is Definitions and Consistancy. None of the Civ games have been consistant in how they defined their units. On the one hand, you have Legions and Phalanxes that are types of Units, on the otherhand you have Archers/Bowmen, Howitzers, Pikemen, Riflemen, etc that are simply types of soldiers or weapons.
Please, however you define the Units in Clash, be consistant.
Note that if you define by Units, most of them will require several types of equipment BUT will allow you to provide Historical designations: Hussar Brigade, Legion, Tuman, Panzer Division, etc. This might help in Player Identification with their TFs, which otherwise might seem a little bland...

[Mark_Everson]

Diodorus Sicilus:

Wow... I haven't the time to respond to all of it at this point, but here's a few things.

Time/Movement/Orders and Combat:

[You may already know this... Parts of your post talk about it. Just hard to be sure, so I'll run through it here.]
The way I look at it (Druid may have an alternate way) a civ-like military system works by having a military "time scale" that's different from the rest of the game. One could have a game with econ turns and military turns both on a monthly basis. With such a system you can have reasonable movement rates, supply effects etc. Clearly this isn't feasible unless virtually nothing happens in a turn. Then when a war flares up you'd do your thing for a bit. I actually toyed with a concept like this a while back, but its Completely unfeasible for multiplayer. This is because the others I'm playing with might have to wait many hours as I fight out a war with the AI.

I view what civ does as an abstratction that breaks the two timescales apart. (just like the abstratction in the miniatures game you cited) You make the econ scale much longer (say 10 years at the longest) but leave the military scale at about a month (or whatever; the turn length may change, but the ratio between the two systems can stay fixed). Now you need to do some patching between the disparate time scales (like in Civ it takes Really long to Build military units... Of course in Clash the Maintence costs will probably be more important). But that's why I think the commander-dies and other things that are clearly inappropriate on a years-long time scale can still find a home in the system.

"the best defender in the TF will be available" in the doc... had slipped by me. I thought we were agregating the combat power. Maybe this is just still in there as a holdover from the old way of doing it. Things like an initiative modifier would include whether the 'best' defender made it to the front in an abstract way.

Thanks for the unit progression info. It sounds good to me. Lets see what Druid thinks (and Kull when he gets up to speed).

Like your suggestions for mods to Ambush mode.

Mobilization:
If you leave them enough money and they feel threatened, the people will invest in building military capability themselves.

Supply:
I have another of van Creveld's books(Technology and War), so I'm familiar with the 200-mile land supply limit. We may modify the real values to improve playability if needed.

I like your Shock, Firepower, Flexibility idea. Its a different way to put in the things we mostly have in the system IMO anyway. Lets see what Druid thinks.

As for social and other effects on the unit capabilities we're not there yet. Any suggestions how to do it? One way would be to increase the maintenance cost of units that train more, and are as a concequence more effective.

I'd like for us to continue this discussion at Military / Combat Model II ( http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum21/HTML/000102.html ) because this one is getting too big, and will become yet slower to load if we keep at it.

-Mark

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited June 10, 1999).]