Tweet
Streuth, Out of the frame for only 2 days and I get a pile of questions. (No complaint really.)
Mark
First up, Indeed we have no reason to use integers, I have only done so to make the math examples easy. I would suggest a 5 step breakdown for reporting or possibly a cute % bar on a right click info screen etc. Green, experienced, seasoned, veteran and hardened or any other descriptives that are desired. Similarily with training we could range from raw, trained, competant, expert and elite etc.
As to element size I thought we were always going to use ~500 with each hit equivalent to 100 men. A quick overview is as follows. A element is given a basic firepower dependant on it's primary weapon, Other weapons can be attached as additions or replacements. For example a Swedish musketeer battalion has a raw firepower of 120 in contact and 80 at short range. Their king decides that he would like the battalions too now include some light artillery (battalion guns) to assist with ranged fire. The king has 2 choices either - add the guns, leaving the base firepower untouched, adding an additional hit and also the manpower cost. - Or include the guns with the battalion not growing in size but losing 1/5th of its base firepower.
I can see the elements as being capped in the number of attachments allowed to probably 3. Allowing for a heavy weapons attachment, a Anti tank attachment and even an Anti aircraft attachment in a modern battalion. The specialties are definetly a whole element training method and most specialties would also not have many attachments. (Very few engineering battalions with attached artillery as standard.)
Laurent
The unit is what we order around the element is the definable subparts of that unit. A TF can include many units. The reason for the definable elements at this stage is to allow for the player to make their own unit structures, not just accept some raw unit definitions.
For example Your legion may contain 10 legionary elements and cost X amount of production. My legion may have 8 legionary elements a cav atachment and a engineer attachment and cost Y (probably about 20% more). Your legion and mine would be nearly equal in some situations but mine has additional scouting and engineering support and will probably beat yours if I get to build some field fortifications or need to cross a river or need to build some siege equipment vs a walled city etc. Both legions have a similar number of men but one is structured to be more flexible and more expensive.
The definition of unit structure I would like to see left up to the player so that they can do some basic experimentation. In most situations players will probably follow a fairly historical approach but If we were to map the availability of resources etc the n maybe a continent has no horses (eg america) and so the civilisations there may make up for the lack of horsecavalry in their units by including more Skirmishing infantry. (I am unsure if we plan on mapping the availability of resources at this level, but I think it would be a good thing.)
The reason I do not support a TF is made up of a mass of elements approach is that it adds too much to the players management. The control of the elements within each unit is basically a administrative function and the player can only alter the structures to a limited and possibly costly degree. Example, At the start of WW1 England had a 2 brigade, 2 regiment, 3 battalion structure too its infantry divisons(12 battalions). In late 1915 they decided to remodel the whole army in a triangular 9 battalion structure. This increased the number of divisions and each division had a higher proportion of support equipment backing a reduced manpower compliment. The divisions could still hold the same frontage due to the support but did lose some of their assault ability. Mind you the 1914-15 divisions rarely survived in good enough order to make their additional assault power count.
F. Smith
Support methods could change dependant on government types and administrative methods. Feudal governments would probably raise a unit from a region and the region would support it. Later on republics with improved centralisation had units raised regionally but supported nationally (Napoleon-WW1 era). Finally we have nations raise units and support them (WW2 on). I am unsure how this should be modelled at present. I am certain though that we will not modell element support but instead model unit support. The element is just a building block, probably the smallest distinct buildable part of a unit but it is not actually a unit.
Mark again -
Dispersion/defence, I do agree to some extent but I currently have Assault Firepower existing as a seperate value that I expect to be effected by the dispersion of the element. We will also have a very restricted range of dispersal values usable by the archaic forces as the dispersal values are limited by communications and organisational tech advances. So the values we will be playing with will be very low. Between a legion and a Phalanx formation we will have a trade off between higher assault power for the phalanx and the slightly higher defence and mobility of the legion. They effectively give a wash in engagements between similar tech forces.
As well the defence value will probably not be used (or will be limited) in any assault where the one side is definetely holding a static position.(defending fortifications etc) A unit can only use its defence if it can still maneuver and remain dispersed. Mind you the static force could then get different benefits.
A phalanx has a very large assault value with a low defence due to concentration of manpower. A US Civil War Regiment would be dispersed over 4 times the frontage but would have a massive medium and short range firepower advantage. If the phalanx was able to actually close to assault, the CW troops would probably lose as they will have a lower ( but certainly not insignificant ) assault value. The problem is that unless the CW troops stand and take it like a good pincushion they will fall back and use their dispersal defence, allowing only part of themselves to be engaged at each round of assault combat.
I have not presented a formula for this decrease in assault power due to increase in dispersion yet but a direct correlation could potentially be used. This would certainly mirror the historical concerns that increased ranged firepower caused vs the need for shock (assault) power. If desired a player could have their Assault rifle armed troops attack in an assault column vs troops without such weapons to add to his assault value but heavan forbid the enemy deceitfully manage to purchase a machine gun or two from an ally.
As a set of examples I would roughly compare the following.
Phalanx - No ranged firepower, assault rating of 75, Defence of 1 (2 vs assault), armour of 2, mobility of 2.
Napoleonic Line infantry - Short ranged FP of 50, Assault rating of 30, Defence of 3, Armour of 1, mobility of 4.
British WW1 Infantry Battalion- Long range Fp of 25, Medium range Fp of 100, Short range FP of 225, Assault rating of 25 (decrease due to dispersion off set by improvement in weapons like grenades and pistols etc.), Defence of 8, armour 1, mobility of 6
Israeli modern Para battalion- Long range Fp of 40, Medium range Fp of 120, Short range FP of 350, Assault rating of 60 (decrease due to dispersion off set by increase in assault weapons like Assault rifles and Sub machine guns.), Defence of 12, Armour of 2, Mobility of 8.
The old high density phalanx has an advantage assuming they could start the battle at very short ranges. The problem for them is that this rarely happens with terrain being the main range restrictor on direct fire, and open terrain is also a major factor in the power of dense formations.
Some people would like to use a example like Isandlawhana as a example of archaic beating modern. It is still possible under the system especially when you consider that the odds are 10/15-1 and the british had some supply difficulties and were outscouted. If the Zulu assault went in at night as originally planned then the battle would have been much more one sided in the zulu's favour. The battle does though represent almost the last time a "modern" force has lost to essentially archaic forces at that scale. It is also doubtful if it could be considered a win for the zulu's as their losses have been stated at upto 4 times that of the british. 10000 to 2500. Yes they destroyed one of 3 invading british forces, but they lost a massive chunk of not only their military but also of their population in one afternoon.
Sorry for going on for so long. True tech disparity does lead to simply massive losses for the side that declined to learn. (While in africa I heard the story of the battle of white river. 15000 to 100, the 100 lost but the 15000 were down to 8000.)
Mark
First up, Indeed we have no reason to use integers, I have only done so to make the math examples easy. I would suggest a 5 step breakdown for reporting or possibly a cute % bar on a right click info screen etc. Green, experienced, seasoned, veteran and hardened or any other descriptives that are desired. Similarily with training we could range from raw, trained, competant, expert and elite etc.
As to element size I thought we were always going to use ~500 with each hit equivalent to 100 men. A quick overview is as follows. A element is given a basic firepower dependant on it's primary weapon, Other weapons can be attached as additions or replacements. For example a Swedish musketeer battalion has a raw firepower of 120 in contact and 80 at short range. Their king decides that he would like the battalions too now include some light artillery (battalion guns) to assist with ranged fire. The king has 2 choices either - add the guns, leaving the base firepower untouched, adding an additional hit and also the manpower cost. - Or include the guns with the battalion not growing in size but losing 1/5th of its base firepower.
I can see the elements as being capped in the number of attachments allowed to probably 3. Allowing for a heavy weapons attachment, a Anti tank attachment and even an Anti aircraft attachment in a modern battalion. The specialties are definetly a whole element training method and most specialties would also not have many attachments. (Very few engineering battalions with attached artillery as standard.)
Laurent
The unit is what we order around the element is the definable subparts of that unit. A TF can include many units. The reason for the definable elements at this stage is to allow for the player to make their own unit structures, not just accept some raw unit definitions.
For example Your legion may contain 10 legionary elements and cost X amount of production. My legion may have 8 legionary elements a cav atachment and a engineer attachment and cost Y (probably about 20% more). Your legion and mine would be nearly equal in some situations but mine has additional scouting and engineering support and will probably beat yours if I get to build some field fortifications or need to cross a river or need to build some siege equipment vs a walled city etc. Both legions have a similar number of men but one is structured to be more flexible and more expensive.
The definition of unit structure I would like to see left up to the player so that they can do some basic experimentation. In most situations players will probably follow a fairly historical approach but If we were to map the availability of resources etc the n maybe a continent has no horses (eg america) and so the civilisations there may make up for the lack of horsecavalry in their units by including more Skirmishing infantry. (I am unsure if we plan on mapping the availability of resources at this level, but I think it would be a good thing.)
The reason I do not support a TF is made up of a mass of elements approach is that it adds too much to the players management. The control of the elements within each unit is basically a administrative function and the player can only alter the structures to a limited and possibly costly degree. Example, At the start of WW1 England had a 2 brigade, 2 regiment, 3 battalion structure too its infantry divisons(12 battalions). In late 1915 they decided to remodel the whole army in a triangular 9 battalion structure. This increased the number of divisions and each division had a higher proportion of support equipment backing a reduced manpower compliment. The divisions could still hold the same frontage due to the support but did lose some of their assault ability. Mind you the 1914-15 divisions rarely survived in good enough order to make their additional assault power count.
F. Smith
Support methods could change dependant on government types and administrative methods. Feudal governments would probably raise a unit from a region and the region would support it. Later on republics with improved centralisation had units raised regionally but supported nationally (Napoleon-WW1 era). Finally we have nations raise units and support them (WW2 on). I am unsure how this should be modelled at present. I am certain though that we will not modell element support but instead model unit support. The element is just a building block, probably the smallest distinct buildable part of a unit but it is not actually a unit.
Mark again -
Dispersion/defence, I do agree to some extent but I currently have Assault Firepower existing as a seperate value that I expect to be effected by the dispersion of the element. We will also have a very restricted range of dispersal values usable by the archaic forces as the dispersal values are limited by communications and organisational tech advances. So the values we will be playing with will be very low. Between a legion and a Phalanx formation we will have a trade off between higher assault power for the phalanx and the slightly higher defence and mobility of the legion. They effectively give a wash in engagements between similar tech forces.
As well the defence value will probably not be used (or will be limited) in any assault where the one side is definetely holding a static position.(defending fortifications etc) A unit can only use its defence if it can still maneuver and remain dispersed. Mind you the static force could then get different benefits.
A phalanx has a very large assault value with a low defence due to concentration of manpower. A US Civil War Regiment would be dispersed over 4 times the frontage but would have a massive medium and short range firepower advantage. If the phalanx was able to actually close to assault, the CW troops would probably lose as they will have a lower ( but certainly not insignificant ) assault value. The problem is that unless the CW troops stand and take it like a good pincushion they will fall back and use their dispersal defence, allowing only part of themselves to be engaged at each round of assault combat.
I have not presented a formula for this decrease in assault power due to increase in dispersion yet but a direct correlation could potentially be used. This would certainly mirror the historical concerns that increased ranged firepower caused vs the need for shock (assault) power. If desired a player could have their Assault rifle armed troops attack in an assault column vs troops without such weapons to add to his assault value but heavan forbid the enemy deceitfully manage to purchase a machine gun or two from an ally.
As a set of examples I would roughly compare the following.
Phalanx - No ranged firepower, assault rating of 75, Defence of 1 (2 vs assault), armour of 2, mobility of 2.
Napoleonic Line infantry - Short ranged FP of 50, Assault rating of 30, Defence of 3, Armour of 1, mobility of 4.
British WW1 Infantry Battalion- Long range Fp of 25, Medium range Fp of 100, Short range FP of 225, Assault rating of 25 (decrease due to dispersion off set by improvement in weapons like grenades and pistols etc.), Defence of 8, armour 1, mobility of 6
Israeli modern Para battalion- Long range Fp of 40, Medium range Fp of 120, Short range FP of 350, Assault rating of 60 (decrease due to dispersion off set by increase in assault weapons like Assault rifles and Sub machine guns.), Defence of 12, Armour of 2, Mobility of 8.
The old high density phalanx has an advantage assuming they could start the battle at very short ranges. The problem for them is that this rarely happens with terrain being the main range restrictor on direct fire, and open terrain is also a major factor in the power of dense formations.
Some people would like to use a example like Isandlawhana as a example of archaic beating modern. It is still possible under the system especially when you consider that the odds are 10/15-1 and the british had some supply difficulties and were outscouted. If the Zulu assault went in at night as originally planned then the battle would have been much more one sided in the zulu's favour. The battle does though represent almost the last time a "modern" force has lost to essentially archaic forces at that scale. It is also doubtful if it could be considered a win for the zulu's as their losses have been stated at upto 4 times that of the british. 10000 to 2500. Yes they destroyed one of 3 invading british forces, but they lost a massive chunk of not only their military but also of their population in one afternoon.
Sorry for going on for so long. True tech disparity does lead to simply massive losses for the side that declined to learn. (While in africa I heard the story of the battle of white river. 15000 to 100, the 100 lost but the 15000 were down to 8000.)
. We're pretty much focusing on ancient stuff for now in the demo... So we've got some idea on what a Phalanx does from your post. Can you also give your take on similar stats for warriors (pick an era), ancient light horse, and a naval vessel like a trireme? I think with three land and one water unit we can do some interesting stuff. Also do you have any ideas on weapons/hardware costs and training costs for the four units?
. 
Comment