Mil Model discussion thread

[Harlikwin]

Re M4
Well, my main concern is to capture the feel of these conflicts. In ancient times you cmpaigns that lasted 20 years or more. In modern times campaigns can take under a year (i.e. desert storm... 100 hrs) The other thing that I would like modeled somehow would be seasonal effects and so forth.

Ok, from the Ai point of view I see the bigger problem. So what are the alternatives? The sliding scale as we discussed or what. The seasonal effects can be handled abstractly I know that... The rapidity of modern conflict though seems a bit harder to do...

-Harli

[korn469]

hmmmm the more i think of it, the more my system just seems like a "slow real time system" however, you would get automatic pauses for each turn and the actions your troops could complete before the turn is over would be a reasonable enough amount that you could actually plan out the turn or a string of turns without too much hassel

[Mark_Everson]

M 4:

hello korn469, glad you could make it!

Harli:
leftover movement...
I think the big point to get right is that if all the timescales were right, a unit that should be able to make it to a confrontation in real life, should be able to make it in the game. So units that are close enough to make it by the end of the first battle should be able to join at the end (provided they have orders to support etc.) Task Forces that could not reach the first battle in time, but probably would make it in time for a second battle if one is going to occur, should show up for that battle. This will not only make the battles more realistic, but will make the description of the results much better IMO.

I do think you need to put an arbitrary limitation on how many battles actually happened in a turn though. I think for each age we just need to pick the amount of Real military time that happens in a game turn. If we follow that regimen, then everything else will turn out right. It's just that the military time will never match the calendar time.

Or hears an alternate radical idea... just never say what the real-time is! I'm not sure if this would be good or bad, but would get us around the problem of campaigns that should take a few months taking a few years instead.

The discussion on mercenaries hasn't gotten very far. Just that they will be more expensive in general than regular troops. Some cultures will probably specialize in hiring out mercenaries.

I hear you on the continuous move model. There is one hybrid between continuous movement and per-square movement that I sought out also. I will run it by you just in case to see what you think. The idea would be that movement is per square, and you're always assumed to be at the center of the square. However, if a TF selects a go to destination, as long as that destination isn't changed additional incremental progress toward it would be kept track of even if it didn't amount to a whole square. So suppose my movement rate is 1.5 squares per turn the first turn I would move one square toward my goal. The second turn, if the goal hasn't changed, I would move to squares toward my goal because I would be using the "saved up .5 from the last time. What to think?

[korn469]

i think that all actions should either be pass/fail in reguards to action points...either you have enough to take you into the square or you do not...and if we had 12 action points a turn i think that we should reserve 2 points that are only used special circumstances...using all 12 would be like forcing a unit to move and would be stressful on a unit

[Mark_Everson]

M5:

Gentlemen, Please number your posts

Korn469: I was specifically referring to Krenske's model where he had 12 monthly turns, and also some phases with in those turns. I think 12 phases period Within a normal game turn might be a few too many, but I Do like the general idea. To get the phases/ticks right though, you might need to use a continuous movement system or at least a hybrid want I mentioned..

Harlikwin: I think you just have to accept that you will Never get the exact right timescales for modern military conflict. I personally don't see any alternatives, although I would certainly be open to hearing any. Do you really want to play a game that's based on one day turns? Even playing out the last decade would take Forever. So long as the general strategic aspects of each age of history are captured approximately correctly, I'm happy.

Korn469 the ticks are indeed like a slow real-time system. That doesn't bother me. Does it bother you? We're trying to make things more accurate, and only making things more like real-time (although I personally don't like real-time games) seems fine to me.

[Harlikwin]

Korn: Pertty much all battles take 1 tic. The way I see it in terms of scale is that time for 1 tic iss far graer than 1 day. 1 Day is the longest 1 battle is gonna run... that is why I propose more than 1 battle in hex per tic...

-Harli

[korn469]

re: m10

seeya soon mark

ok here is an example of support

2 opposing TFs are moving into the same square

there is another TF 2 squares away from the TF on its side

all TFs take 3 ticks to move and a battle will take 4 ticks

here's how it's set up

1st TF moving this way ----->
empty space #1
2nd TF moving this way ----->
empty space #2
enemy 3rd TF moving this way <-----

on the first tick the 2nd TF and the 3rd TF will move into empty space #2

the 1st TF will move into empty space #1

for the next 2 ticks all of the units can do nothing, they are considered moving

on the fourth tick a battle begins between the 2nd and 3rd TF for the next 3 ticks they can do nothing (except break, die, surrender, or retreat but for simplicity sake they only fight in this example)

the 1st TF moves from empty space #1 to the original position of the 2nd TF this takes 3 ticks, so on the fourth tick of the battle the 1st TF can provide support but it can't provide support before then

[korn469]

harli

ok we could make battles just take one tick, and have factors like commitment/agression level have when a unit tries to retreat out of the hex, however a tick is the smallest amount of time and is indivisable, all actions should take at least one tick if not more

when u say multiple battles per tick do u mean that

A) more than one TF should be fighting during that tick

or do you mean that

B) 10 little battles should be fought in a tick?

if you mean A i agree, if you mean B i disagree

[korn469]

it is 1:30 i need to go and do somethings but i will check the thread at 2 to see if anything new has been posted

korn469

[Mark_Everson]

M11
Harli:

How about we think of a tick is a few days? I don't really think that you very frequently have more than one battle in a week. There is inevitably a reorganization. Gettysburg itself took two or three days. This means in a few ticks with combat movement rates, you can move one square.

I think we just need to take one scale and stick with it. Now as I said above, the military scale is simply not going to match the economic scale, otherwise we will have way too many turns.

Korn469:

The I think your example has the general idea about what I think to. My only quibbles are that the first two TF's shouldn't actually move into the square until the end of the third tick. I completely agree that support can't be provided until the TF gets there! On this scale I don't know whether a battle should take two ticks or four, that's my only other reservation about your model. 60 miles away seems a bit far to reach it in time. I would say clearly would be there by the start of any second battle that occurred.

If you're interested in proposing a strategic orders system to go along with the tick example, I think they go hand-in-hand and the presentation would be a lot smoother with both presented at the same time... whatcha think?

Also, it seems to work out approximately correctly if we make the military movement timescale a factor of 10 faster than the economic and diplomatic timescales for ancient times. So when 10 ticks go by in the military timescale, you are spending something of order a month. But the economic turn would be about a year. As we got into the modern age we might want to change this ratio. 10 Ticks would still be about a month, but the economic turn might shorten to about three months.

[korn469]

M11

mark

ok how about this

an action like movement or whatever happens after the appropriate amount of ticks goes by...

so with movement the TF moves on the thurd tick if it takes three ticks for a unit to move

and combat is just 1 tick long, but th amount of ticks a unit spends consecutively spends engaed in battle depends on it's commitment level and whatever

ok i agree with that and think that it is the better system

so we are agreed that the action happens on the last tick instead of the first?

[Mark_Everson]

Sounds good to me. We'll have to see what Harli says before it'd be official. But based on his previous statements I'd guess it should be ok...

[Harlikwin]

Ok, The way I read you guys on the whole turn/tic thing is this...

One "military turn" is divied into X tics. Each unit can move fight etc.

My point. SCALE
This military turn is going to be at leas something like 1 year, probably longer, therefore each tic represents at least a few months of time. Therefore, I do not see any battle regardless of anything else commitment etc. NOTHING (battlewise anyway) taking more than one tic. In fact in the space of one tic you could easily have several battles in the same square, due to the scale of battles being pretty short affairs. In the civil war forces manouvered for weeks or months, before something like a 1 or two day battle.

Correct me if I'm wrong on the tic thing, I'm not sure I still get it.

-Harli

[korn469]

ok i am going to sum up things we have talked about...tell me whether you agree or disagree

1. for a full battle to take place units have to be in the same square...supporting actions could happen but to fully engage in battle the TFs must be in the same square

2. to reinforce a TF you have to have the reinforcements move into the square the battle is taking place in, and this will cost movement (take ticks) even if they are in the adjacent square

3. there will be 10 ticks per turn (there may be 2 reserved ticks that units don't use except under special circumstances to represent a valiant action)

4. for a unit to support another in combat it must be in an adjacent square and not be involved in anyother actions

5. combat between TFs takes one tick

6. an action does not occur until the last tick (instead of an action occuring on the first tick)

7. the smallest unit of time is one tick and it can't be divided into smaller units, and each action should cost at least one tick

8. actions can be multi-turn actions...if an action takes 5 ticks and it starts on the 8th tick of one turn, it would spill over into the next turn until the action is complete

9. when a unit is involved in one action it cannot participate in another action (of course there maybe a few exceptions)

ok are we all agreed on that? if not please state why

i have to go for now and won't be back until later tonight

korn469
[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited January 16, 2000).]

[Mark_Everson]

Harli:

I think the scales need to be different between economic and military actions. If you can just focus on the military, and take a turn to equal one month approximately, and a tick to equal three days approximately. If you stick to this scale for everything military, all the game effects should come out in a roughly sensible way. The only disconnect is between the economic timescale and the military timescale, which I am only just have to fudge. By fudge I mean picks something that results in decent game play.

This requires different timescales for military and economic turns. But so long as all the military stuff works to the same timescale, everything will, out approximately correct. By approximately correct, I mean the same civs will win the same wars they will lead if we fought out the whole game on a realistic timescale. It's just that military things will happen significantly more slowly than they otherwise would. But as we agreed above (I thought), we can just not say what exactly a turn is, and leave it at that.

If you stick to your idea that one tick equals a month, then we will have the ridiculous result that reserves 60 miles away can never help friendly forces as they go through battle after battle after battle! For the system to work, there Has to be one disconnect. I think the place to disconnect with reality is to keep the military timescale of everything the same, and just have it not match correctly the economic and diplomatic timescale.

It might also be useful for you to read over the following posts in which I discussed my take on this issue. M2 near the bottom; M3, virtually the entire thing; M 4 Middle two paragraphs.

Korn469: those sound basically Ok with me. On 4 I think if a battle in square A is over by tick 2 (FE) those TFs should be able to attempt to support adjacent square B later (say getting there by tick 6)even though they were technically in an action this turn.


All:

I am taking the liberty of locking this thread, so that people won't post in it thinking that it is the ongoing military model thread. If anyone objects, I will happily unlock it...
Any further posts that are on the topics herein should be put in the current military discussion thread.


[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited January 18, 2000).]