Mil Model discussion thread

[Harlikwin]

Re: M5

I kind of like the saving up movment idea. It seems like a good comprimise and wouldn't really neccesitate any design changes of my system.

As for the battles... The reinforcng for the second battle is exactly how the system would work. As for the time scale there I think that the 1 day isn't a bad idea. Its realistic and if we take into account the fact that the "combat time" of any army is something like 1% then it works out fine...

Grand Ideas and definitons:

In terms of the big idea in time scale. OK, if we look at how long campaings lasted and how many major battles were fought in that time we can figure out a rough number of fightable battles per given amount of time in the game. From there we can adjust sacles. This gives a good feel for stuff IMO. Also I like the idea f not telling the player what year it is in that case... IF we go that way, I vote that all operations then would be army level. since that is what we are simulating. Again this reinforces the TF concept. For example napoleonic armies averaged ~2000-100K troops. so we say the smallest meaingfull enagamnt has to have at least 10K troops and base TF's around that kind of idea... This would avoid small actions and just focus on the big battles of the eras (which are the ones that had the politcal ramificatons)

-HArli

[This message has been edited by Harlikwin (edited January 16, 2000).]

[korn469]

re:M5

mark personally i love RTS games

about saving up, there should not be any saving of action points, but there should be multi-turn actions...like you give a unit 5 orders to do...it might take it 2 full turns and part of the third turn to finish all of it's actions

[korn469]

k1

ok one thing i would like to be resolved is this...

for a full battle to take place, i fell that units have to be in the same square, like in the demo...supporting actions could happen but to fully engage in battle the TFs must be in the same square

is that agreed?

[Harlikwin]

Re: K1

I agree to that. Thats all my model models
Reinforcment would take place between individual battles...

-Harli

[korn469]

Re: Re:k1

ok but to reinforce a TF you have to have the reinforcements move into that suare, and this will cost movement even if they are in the adjacent square

is that agreed?

[Mark_Everson]

M6

Harli: (for your posts of 12:01)

I'm glad you think saving a movement is OK. Another alternative is to do kind of like what is done in civ. Specifically if you have a phase and can't get completely to the next square, you could have a chance of getting to the neck square which is proportional to your movement left compared to the movement necessary to get to the neck square.

OK, if we can get the reinforcement to work right, I don't have any problems with the system.

Time with you on your last paragraph, I think getting the rough number of finable battles per amount of gametime right is the most important thing. I agree that were mainly only interested in the big battles. Although once the get the scale set right for the big battles, small battles could be just fought according to the same rules.

K1 discussion...
agree Completely. People can't fight unless there in the same square So a reinforcement actually has to be able to make it into the square to affect either the initial battle, or a subsequent one. I think if we just let history be our guide as to whether a potential supporting TF could reach the battle, or the next one, we will be in good shape.

[Harlikwin]

Re: Re: Re: K1

Umm... Kinda
Way I see it if the unit has left over movment it would increase the chance of reinforcment. But it should still be possible. History is litterd with examples of fantastic achievents of movment in a short time. So I think it should be possible, if unlikely...

-Harli

[korn469]

k2

ok using the tick system here is something that can happen

in this battle there are three TFs

the roman 12th legion (4 units)

the carthaginian 11th levies (5 units)
the carthaginian 4th cav (4 units)

the romans 12th moves at a rate of 3 action points (ticks) per square

the carthaginian 11th moves at a rate of 3 ticks per square

the carthaginian 4th moves at a rate of 2 ticks per square

the roman 12th and the carth 11th moves into a square at the same time, and start a battle

2 ticks later the carth 4th into the square and starts, battle will ensue...but how do you think we should handle it?

i was thinking that since they are different TFs that the roman 12th should be in two overlapping battles, or it could just join the battle but extend the amount of ticks that the battle takes

what do you think?

[Harlikwin]

Re: M6

Ok, yeah I agree that smaller stuff can be fought according to the same rules but I jsut wanted to point out that if we go with the big army model the amount of small battles fough will be historally low. I am ok with that if other people are, since some examples historically can be found (Palestine WWI was fought with pretty small forces while europe had big armies etc.)

-Harli

[korn469]

re:^4 k1

harli that is why there is 2 reserved ticks in a turn, few units could use those reserved ticks except under special circumstances like doing a forced march to reinforce a battle

[Mark_Everson]

M7

OK, now I'm going to stretch. Can we agree that there will be something on the order of 10 "action phases" per turn. Not much could be done in each individual action phase in terms of movement. But time with korn469 that allows for logical determination of whether a unit can move a bit and then do something else. Also, how about if we say that a battle takes one or two of these phases. Regrouping might also take one or two of these phases if there is the second battle coming. This would give us a timescale for saying roughly when a supporting TF outside the fight could get there. In the 10 action phases, has korn469 has laid out previously, you might move a few squares, or perform some other action. One advantage of doing the action phases thing, is that if one side gets to a square work combat is going to occur at the very end of the turn, it's clear no battle actually before the beginning of the next turn. On the other hand combat instead started the square in the turn would be able to fight three or four or five battles before the turn end.

[Harlikwin]

Re K1^5

Ok that sounds fine, just so you know I really don't have tick thing down totally yet, and I'm not sure if we are gonna use it. Personally I am focusing on getting the battle resolution done first. While you guys work on the rest of it...

-Harli

[korn469]

re:2 M6

Mark i think that we should make it advantageous to have one 8 unit task force instead of two 4 unit task forces in terms of actually fighting a battle, until sophisticated command and control technology comes around but having one TF instead of two would limit your flexibility

[Mark_Everson]

M8

Also I propose support only starts when its determined a battle is going to Happen. This might be on tick 1, 5 or 10 of the turn. TFs that have already used all movement are genrally not able to support whereas those who don't use all movement could start moving in support whenever they get notification of a battle. Of course there's some flexibility around this as Harli points out, but this should be a general guideline IMO.

[Harlikwin]

RE: M7
That sounds like a pretty good idea... Though in terms of scale we might say a few battles can be fought per big phase...

Harli