Military Model III

[Mark_Everson]

Let's see... I'll try to answer a bunch of questions as briefly as possible.

Although the game's focus is strategic, you can play it in a semi-tactical way that will have the general feel of Civ2 combat but with many more details and options. Alternatively, in "Rodrigo" mode , you can also play it on a grand-strategic level by putting the AI in charge. The player will also be able to give their military forces arbitrary bonuses or handicaps. That way, even if the AI doesn't play as well tactically as you do you can still put the AI in charge without its screwing up the game. You would just set the bonuses or handicaps so that the results on average with the AI in charge match the results if you were in charge.

On map levels... we have talked a little bit about this, but are mostly sticking to the historical stuff for now. That doesn't indicate the final design direction, but just our limited resources and the fact that we have to get Something working.

TFs sensing... I don't know about that one, Harli may have thought about it.

Frank... We're also anxiously awaiting being able to play the game! As was said, you can always break up your task forces into units if you want to try some bit of tactical brilliance. But the general level of play is expected to be moving task forces. Right now units are basically divisions and the task force/division dynamics work as TK said. If you want more information on what is involved in units, you can read the Units Model. Because of the scope of the basic game I don't think we can go much lower than division size. For scenarios, you could of course go to a much finer level of detail if you have the patience for it.

Recruiting troops... we have discussed this in the past, but I tried to find it using the search feature and couldn't come across it. I'm pretty sure there is a discussion on the old forum if you want to dig for it. Also some of the discussions may have been in e-mails between me and Hrafnkell. I don't have time to search for them right now. However, the discussions we might find with this approach could be fairly brief anyway, and certainly wouldn't be in terms of the new government/social model. I definitely would like to have some information on the willingness of the troops to be fighting, and the general quality of the soldiers in the model. If you would like to take a stab at the most important factors, it certainly something we need to consider in the mid-term.

[Frank80878]

If the task force units are based on divisions what are you going to do with the special forces. They don't perform operations on division level. They operate in Companies and each company is then assigned to a division. The special forces/Ranger units are then used to do recon for the division. And in the case of a Counter-Insurgence campaign they'd be used for ambushes and commando raids to disrupt the flow of men and supplies. I'm not being critical because I don't have an answer either. I do think the problem should be addressed because modern warfare is based on small groups of elite troops instead of masses of soldiers like WW1.

[Mark_Everson]

Frank:

I think there is already provision for special forces in the system. You can find hints of it on the Units page. Essentially you could have one combat element of Rangers or whatever be part of the division. Then you would get a benefit in terms of scouting etc.

[Richard Bruns]

In the request thread, roquijad asked about military recruitment. In my upcoming population model, I will have a preliminary plan for determining the proportion of the population suitable for military service. Look at the population model when I finish it. Rodrigo, you might also want to work with the social model about the effects of conscription and military operations.


Mark mentionmed that the military model team is shorthanded. I would love to help, but I am a bit booked at the moment. However, I plan on dealing with terrain effects on operations in the ecology model, and I think I have a good system for the military side of the tech tree. If you need the help, I could tweak the terrain aspect so it also covers things like movement, fortification, and amphibious assaults. Would that be good?

[alms66]

Ok, this is kinda off the wall, but what if we give units their real world equivilant movement rates? Most units would have 10+ movement points, and it would cost 1 point to move on flat land. If your unit moved into enemy territory, it would still cost the same movement points, unless it encountered resistance, then each "skirmish" would cost, say, 3 move points, each "battle" would cost 5, etc. Would this be plausible, possible, playable, in Clash? It would allow the taking of vast amounts of territory ala, Ceasar's capture of Gaul, as I think Mark has mentioned, happened in less than one Clash turn.

I'm not sure if this issue has already been discussed... I didn't follow the military stuff until model 3... so if it has, just let me know.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi TK:

Yes, this has already been discussed ad nauseam...
1. It eliminates the possibility of any tactical response on behalf of the player unless you then allowed player actions between movement points, which is IMO insanity.
2. Our design of supporting playing multiple turns at the same time essentially makes this possible, but just with smaller numbers of moves per turn, but letting many turns go by the same time.
3. What if you are Gaul? Do you really want a player's whole civ to be able to be conquered in a single turn?

[alms66]

Actually I think this could be very good, as it would provide a strategic element which is lacking in all games of this genre... defensive strategy.

1. this is already handled well enough by units "supporting" each other as in demo 4, except with more movement points, a few TF's could defend a very large empire, especially once good roads and rail are in place.

2. well if it takes more turns, it's not quite the same... you can't conquer an enemy in 20 years (one turn), it would take you 60 or more (3 or more turns)

3. Actually, yes. Like I said, it adds that defensive strategy element, which I've never seen in a game like this. In Civ2 FE, I never put units anywhere but in cities unless I was going out to attack, simply because with 2 defensive units and citywalls it was pointless to do so, no unit could take the city.

Also if you were playing the "spirit of the people", then even if you were conquered you could still play on trying to remove the invaders

[Richard Bruns]

Perhaps task forces can be given "guard" or "patrol" orders. They would automatically intercept any enemy units within their movement range that invaded your civ. That way, no one could just walk into your civ.

[Mark_Everson]

Guys:

Yes we will have patrol and support orders. They Do Not adequately cover TKs case. Pre-programmed defense can not be made sufficiently versatile IMO to answer all possible attacks. The more stuff that can happen over a given horizon, the more incabable pre-planned defesive plans are of handling an attack. The ultimate limit is like in Civ, where my units can wander all over your country in a single turn with railroads. It is almost impossible for an AI or plan to be flexible enough to handle this kind of stuff. This was discussed in some detail in the mil threads around the first of this year, and in the dead mil thread you can read on the web site. Please read them. I just don't have the time to go over the arguments again. I know it bothers you if the timescales aren't perfect. Sorry, but IMO gameplay trumps realism. We will be able to test this kind of stuff at a later date, but not until the game is much further along than it is now.

A turn will not always be 20 years! If accuracy of military movement scales and economic time scales is of paramount importance to you, then set the econ time scale to 1 month and everything will work perfectly as in the real world. But there will be this little problem with playability since you'll need about 100k turns for a game starting in 6000BC...

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited August 14, 2000).]

[alms66]

That's great then! I didn't know we were allowing people to set the timer on turns, I thought it would be something like in Civ. I actually like playing those long drawn-out games... it gives it me more of a sense of history.

[Mark_Everson]

I am starting coding up the demo 5 mil model. There is nobody in charge of the mil model at the moment, so any comments are welcome. If some lurker or regular wants the job, and thinks they know enough about military matters please contact me :-).

Implementation order will be
1. the tick system for movement (see my post "posted February 29, 2000 18:15" for some details, and the 'lost' mil thread on clash Military web page, page 2 for further discussion)
2. pathfinding (naturally should be Before 1, but Eduardo is theoretically doing it, I Hope )
3. unit specs (incl elements of units as here.
4. building units, in conjunction with Laurent (econ) and possibly Richard (Population) if that model is coded up earlier than expected.
5. first stab at new combat model, though I hope it gets more comments/discussion first.

I will probably release after steps 2, 4 and 5.

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited September 02, 2000).]

[axi]

Ah, good, your presence here was running a little thin lately. I guess you didn't have much spare time for Clash, until now, am I right? How long is it since the last time you've been coding? This is no reprimend (how could I anyway ), but I was starting to get worried about our Project Lead.

quote: first stab at new combat model, though I hope it gets more comments/discussion first

Ooops, wait a sec! Does this mean the three-phase system that is on the web, or an entirely new combat model? In other words, your "first stab" will be at modelling or at coding the existant model?

I'm not that interested in the Mil Model, I'm just curious.

[Mark_Everson]

Axi:

My presence on the forums has been thin for two reasons. First, a very busy week at work. Second, I am trying to keep my discussions on the forum to the minimum amount that I think is essential, since I think my contributions to the project as a coder need to be larger. And I am already spending about 60% of my available non-work time on Clash, so there isn't much give in the schedule that way. At least I need to do more coding while there are only three programmers really working on the project. If you must know, the last time I was coding was approximately two weeks ago on the Econ model. There was a period when Laurent's son was being born that he wasn't going to be able to code for awhile, so I stepped into push the Econ model coding forward.

I do not particularly appreciate the accusatory questions... You are obviously smart, and at least fairly committed to Clash, why don't you learn to program in Java so you can help code? That is what the project really needs, as you seem to be aware of...

Yes, the basic plan is to try and implement part at least of the three-phase system that Krenske put up that he and Harli worked on. That is the current plan anyway.

[axi]

(Sorry for being totally OT)

quote: I do not particularly appreciate the accusatory questions...

Please don't misunderstand my intentions. I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm only curious. I also think it's good for the team to know what each one of us is doing for Clash outside the discussion part. It's good for morale and it's good for coordination too.

Myself, I have begun working on a full spreadsheet implementation of infrastructure and, as it seems, an update of my govtecon spreadsheet. I am trying to work according to the guidelines of the econ model. I also have some ideas about how to handle emergencies (like war or natural disasters) in the govt model which I am planning to elaborate. It seems that I'm going to have quite alot of time for Clash this month.

As for Java: As time passes, it sounds to me ever less impossible a task. If I learn Java, you will be the first to hear about it.

[Mark_Everson]

I'm part way thru coding the tick system for unit movement. (for general info see my post "posted February 29, 2000 18:15" on p2 of this thread for some details, and the 'lost' mil thread on clash Military web page, page 2 for further discussion)

These are some more things I came up with while coding the TF_Action class that helps to determine tick costs. I think most things are self-explanatory. Remember there are 10 ticks in a month, and moving across clear friendly ground takes about 4 ticks per square.

Tick Cost Modifiers (additive)

NONCOMBAT_MOVE 0.0
ADVANCE_CAUTIOUSLY 1.0
ADVANCE_NORMAL 0.5
ADVANCE_RAPIDLY 0.0

ASSAULT 2.0
BESEIGE 1.5
RAID 1.5
DEFEND 0.0

PILLAGE_NORMAL 2.0
PILLAGE_SAFE 2.0
PILLAGE_WIDELY 3.0

FORAGING_NORMAL 1.0
FORAGING_SAFE 1.0
FORAGING_WIDELY 1.5

FORTIFYING_MINIMAL 0.5
FORTIFYING_NORMAL 1.0
FORTIFYING_EXTENSIVE 3.0
FORTIFYING_CITY 0.5
FORTIFYING_FORTRESS 0.5

Comments?