Tweet
Hello all. I'm new to "helping out" with the Clash project, as I just found out about it. From what I've read so far though, things look like they're going really well!
My background probably would best be put to work with the military model (I'm a veteran and history buff) and the mapping model/world building model (I'm now a GIS/Remote Sensing Analyst...I make maps for a living).
Offhand, I can think of something that might add to the military model, and it's something that might help set Clash apart from many Civ clones. I haven't seen much about military leadership in any of the models (aside from the characters, which are a step removed from what I'm thinking of...) Historically, the military leaders (company grade on up to general staff) have had a HUGE effect on the effectiveness of a military campaign.
Leaders range from very cautious to bold to reckless. The society (IE government type) that they come from often affects the type of leader they become. FE Montgomery, being British, was very cautious and guarded against high losses. Many historians attribute his caution to the horrendous losses suffered by the British in WWI. FE In the Gulf War, the Iraqi leaders were so fearful of their own commanders that they exhibited very little initiative.
What I'm suggesting is that we factor military commanders into the model as strength modifiers, especially if the player chooses to give broad guidlines to their military (strategic level). Actions by the player will affect those commanders at his disposal, and he/she can hire or sack commanders at his discretion using those leaders available to him. FE a player may choose to put his cautious leaders in charge of the home garrison, and put a "Rommel" in charge of the chariot attack against the enemy. Of course, if his gov't is too dictatorial, his "Rommel" may not exhibit enough initiative if facing a general from a more democratic society.
One more example to make my point. Stephen Ambrose pointed this out best, IMO... He gave the example of the Nazis assuming that their race of "super" warriors were the best in history, and that the Allied (democratic) culture was inferior at producing strong soldiers. They were proven wrong at Normandy, where Ambrose proposed that the fighters of democracy succeeded through individual initiative in a very tight spot. Ambrose suggested that the company grade officers and NCO's saved the day (and the invasion) by displaying intiative that was rarely shown by the German soldiers in that theater (of course many of the "Germans" facing them were actually Russian POW's!)
Any comments? If there is an interest in pursuing this, I can work on a method of fitting it into the current military model with a minimum of micromanagement by the player.
------------------
Paul
My background probably would best be put to work with the military model (I'm a veteran and history buff) and the mapping model/world building model (I'm now a GIS/Remote Sensing Analyst...I make maps for a living).
Offhand, I can think of something that might add to the military model, and it's something that might help set Clash apart from many Civ clones. I haven't seen much about military leadership in any of the models (aside from the characters, which are a step removed from what I'm thinking of...) Historically, the military leaders (company grade on up to general staff) have had a HUGE effect on the effectiveness of a military campaign.
Leaders range from very cautious to bold to reckless. The society (IE government type) that they come from often affects the type of leader they become. FE Montgomery, being British, was very cautious and guarded against high losses. Many historians attribute his caution to the horrendous losses suffered by the British in WWI. FE In the Gulf War, the Iraqi leaders were so fearful of their own commanders that they exhibited very little initiative.
What I'm suggesting is that we factor military commanders into the model as strength modifiers, especially if the player chooses to give broad guidlines to their military (strategic level). Actions by the player will affect those commanders at his disposal, and he/she can hire or sack commanders at his discretion using those leaders available to him. FE a player may choose to put his cautious leaders in charge of the home garrison, and put a "Rommel" in charge of the chariot attack against the enemy. Of course, if his gov't is too dictatorial, his "Rommel" may not exhibit enough initiative if facing a general from a more democratic society.
One more example to make my point. Stephen Ambrose pointed this out best, IMO... He gave the example of the Nazis assuming that their race of "super" warriors were the best in history, and that the Allied (democratic) culture was inferior at producing strong soldiers. They were proven wrong at Normandy, where Ambrose proposed that the fighters of democracy succeeded through individual initiative in a very tight spot. Ambrose suggested that the company grade officers and NCO's saved the day (and the invasion) by displaying intiative that was rarely shown by the German soldiers in that theater (of course many of the "Germans" facing them were actually Russian POW's!)
Any comments? If there is an interest in pursuing this, I can work on a method of fitting it into the current military model with a minimum of micromanagement by the player.
------------------
Paul
so I think everyone else took a vacation right about the time he disappeared! It's usually a LOT more hectic around here.
Comment