Military Tactucs

[Lord God Jinnai]

After reviewing everything in the military forum me and rich have come up with 2 basic military techs that need to be added: logistics and tactics. Right now we want to know whether tactics is fine or whether u want more specific tactics (ie land tactics) and which ones.

BTW that's supposed to be TACTICS not TACTUCS.
[This message has been edited by Lord God Jinnai (edited January 21, 2000).]

[Harlikwin]

Oh Lord!

Let there be both tactics and logistics
Certainly at least those two techs, I'm not sure exactly what specific tech advances we are talking about, but a division into Air/Sea/land/ and perhaps space is probably going to be necessary. As for specific advances; well we aren't quite there yet... But as soon as we got some we'll send 'em right over. (Probably the same time with specific weapons techs)

-Harli

[Richard Bruns]

If we do different tactics (air, land, sea) then we will also need a Combined Arms Tactics tech that determines how well the different types of your military can work together. So when you have a task force with different elements, the total army power is multiplied by some factor that is determined by the combined Arms Tactics technology.

Also, I have come to the conclusion that it would be good to have different types of tactics technologies. In fact, we should probably split land tactics into Infantry Tactics and Mobile Tactics (Chariots, Cavalry, and Tanks). So I recommend:
Infantry
Mobile
Sea
Air
Space
Combined Arms

LGJ, you were right about this the first time. Sorry.
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited January 23, 2000).]

[F_Smith]

Personally, I prefer a large 'segmentation' of tactics "techs".

Things like phalanx, envelopment, close support (archers, gunners, artillery, some aircraft -- for supporting a frontal assault), feigned retreat, entrenchment, frontal assault, cavalry charge, indirect fire (allows you to attack entrenched units), blitzkrieg, virtual battlefield (superior coordination of units on the battlefield), etc.

And each "tech" would start out at 0% (or whatever). Then training and experience could increase that unit's abilities in that specific type of combat. That way, units have personality -- ("Oh, that's my 3rd Grenadiers, they're the best assault troops I have but they can't entrench worth a damn!).

And the techs would simply increase battle odds, instead of having an actual tactical component. (Phalanx is a + to defense, - to offense, envelopement is a + to offense, a - to defense, that sort of thing).
Just my brain-dead musings . . .

[Harlikwin]

Ok,

Um, before you all go too nuts on the techs needed lets wait till that battle model is done and how we implement evyrything. Currently the system accounts for everything already mentioned here as well as other stuff. As for a plethora of tactics being tecs I'm not so sure about that... Anyway hopefully the system will be ready in about a week...

-Harli

[Harlikwin]

Um, well actually the military model that is currently under development does use specific tactics, and so forth. Furhtermore in the model the tactics are subordiante to generals and the like. There is currently a pile of varibales in the model. I think I understand your tech model and I am trying to reconcile it with the battle model as we speak... Obviously this cannot be be done until the battle model is complete. FYI as it is modeled Infantry tactics would not increase unit strenght directly...

-Harli

[Richard Bruns]

Currently, the tech model does not care about what exactly is done on the battlefield. The tactics techs I mentioned do not depend on the military or battle model; they simply increase the power of your units. So if you had Infantry Tactics 30% and your enemies had Infantry Tactics 20% and all other things were equal, your armies would probably win.
The bonus given is independent of the military model or battle controls. It represents the ability of your sergents and lower level troop commanders.

[Richard Bruns]

How does this sound:
We make the six tactics that I listed basic technologies that increase in percentage. The level of these tactics gives a small bonus to your army to represent the fighting skills of your unit commanders.

Then, the army level tactics like Envelopment or Entrenchment are treated as applications that become available when you have reached a certain percentage of the basic techs. For example:

Entrenchment: Infantry Tactics 40%
Envelopment: Infantry Tactics 30%, Mobile Tactics 20%, Combined Arms 10%

After you have reached the prerequisites listed, you get the ability to order your army to do use those tactics. And as your tactics techs increase beyond the prerequisites, the army level tactics become more effective.

Would something like that be good?

[F_Smith]

Richard:

That should be excellent. Big thumbs up!

P.S. -- just a personal preference, but can we dump a % system for a simple level system?

I always prefer systems that have something like,



Level:

[*]No Experience[*]Beginning Level[*]Adequate[*]Highly Skilled[*]Expert[/list=a]



Instead of a straight percentage system. I think it's simpler, and more enjoyable. The difference between 20% and 22% is not likely to be worth the extra micromanagement.

Again, just a few pennies from me.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Dropping the %s would be unrealistic for the way our model is done because things are so interdependant on various % levels which might not increase anything in that tech per say but might lead to other advances. Also the way in which we have the slow loss of technology and the slow gain of technology it is really impossible. All basic techs have percentages while everything else is simply set development.

Also not having percentages doesn't show the way in which countries might try to outmanuver their enemies by getting better tactially a little bit then vise versa.

[Richard Bruns]

The percentage based tech system requires very little micromanagement. Your civ has an RP pool and you assign some percentage of those RP's to various techs. Every turn, the change in each tech is calculated based on how much you spent on it. Aside from assigning the percentages and changing them occaisionally to fit anticipated needs, you don't have to do much more than manage your civ well and watch the advances come in as the percentages rise.

Additionally, percentages are much more historically accurate. Knowledge does not grow in huge chunks and then remain static; it increases gradually over time.

And like LGJ said, the percentages are vital to the functioning of the model.

[Henrique Duarte]

Hi
Just a small comment on tech development...I know its out of thread but I suppose it is in the context of the last posts

I agree that knowledge should have a steady growth still there are plenty of examples for sudden breakthroughs...something like acquiring that extra % of tech suddenly opens a lot of new possibilities. I thought that your tech model somehow simulated this, but from Richards post I suddenly started doubting.
Could someone make this one clear for me please?

Thanks

[F_Smith]

I'm sorry, I didn't clarify enough:

I mean 'levels' for the player's view of it. Behind the scenes can/should still be real numbers. But the micromanagement I'm talking about is when a player has to go checking constantly on different numbers that change regularly by relatively small amounts. And the micromanagement of deciding "okay, I have a 42% in this, he has a 39%. What effect will that have . . . is that enough to give me an advantage?" I believe it's easier to manage 5 levels than it is to manage a hundred percentages.

It creates a ton more to memorize/micromanage for the player.

And it should still increase gradually behind the scenes. But for playing the game, I'd rather just have to know "Unit x is a veteran unit, Unit y has some experience, Unit z is green". Instead of "Unit x has 90%, Unit y has 30%, Unit z has 5%".

I just tend to prefer games that give you levels with meaning over games that want number crunching. %'s also seems to lead the designers and players to think of a much higher level of accuracy than is realistic. You can never be sure if your tech is '42%' or '44%', in real life. You just vaguely know the levels of your abilities.

Just personal preference. I understand if ya'll disagree.
[This message has been edited by F_Smith (edited January 27, 2000).]

[Lord God Jinnai]

Henrique:

Part of what ur saying will be addressed in the character model with the usage of scientist and inventors. Beyond that I'm not quite sure of the specifics except that percentage levels can at some points increase rapidly.

F_Smith:

Yes there would be a slight advantage with 42% vs 39%, all thing being equal, you'd likely win, but with prob a lot of casualties (also assuming the little amount of luck plays in your favor).

You might be right about the 5 levels being easier to manage for the player if they chose to micromanage, but it would put too much restraint on our model and also wouldn't allow for the situation descibed above.

Also as far as numbers go, u prob won't see the numbers per say, but will see relative remarks like u have, though prob more than 5 because that's getting too basic as far as levels go. At the least there would be 10 or 20. Remember that these basic techs aren't limited to 100%.

[Richard Bruns]

"acquiring that extra % of tech suddenly opens a lot of new possibilities. I thought that your tech model somehow simulated this,"
---
Henrique: The model does represent this. As I originally designed the model, I had planned on making new things available to the player whenever they got a certain percentage of a basic tech. So if metalworking 50% was the prerequisite for many things, you would be able to build them all whenever you crossed over from 49% to 50%. LGJ wants to add randomness to this, but I don't. As I envisioned the model when I first built it, the basic techs represented not only basic knowledge but also your people building prototypes, testing them, and refining them until the things are ready for you to use them. All of this R&D is represented by a percentage, and when the precentage reaches some value, you get the ability to do new things.

F_Smith: I have a possible compromise. You seem to be mostly concerned about levels assigned to military units, so perheps we could have a "military advisor" that compares the abilities of your and your opponent's units. So if you had 33% and they had 28%, the advisor would say, "Our units are slightly stronger then theirs." You could also ask this advisor about a specific battle, and it would tell you something like, "We will most likely win this battle, but will probably sustain heavy casualties." This kind of advice is very realistic and still allows for small differences in army effectiveness that mirror historical reality. I don't know what the military people think about this; it is just an idea to show that the current tech model will not necessarily mean micromanagement.

Everyone:
You all seem to want to know ASAP how the model works. I have been trying to get LGJ to agree to posting the current tech model. He wants to add more stuff first, but the core system is ready to go. I can post the model with example applications and ample explanation as soon as I get permission.