Military Model IV

[LDiCesare]

I am unsure about what you mean by command.
Command is currently a TF. command would allow for bigger things like brigades etc? Well... I have a (useless by now) General interface which looks like that. What methods would this command object have? I thought General as either a player or AI, whose job is to give orders when there are no orders.

A TF somehow changes the physical abilities of its components, since for instance all units in a TF move at the slowest unit rate:In that sense, a TF is not purely a command.

Also, the difference between Unit and TF is quite artificial since it is just a level of scale. We don't show the Elements to the player so they can only handle Units, but Units are TFs of Elements. In real armies, a TF - brigade would probably have several units (companies -sorry, French military vocabulary-) plus one or two elements like a merchants section, HQ and a radio section which are not in terms of commands part of a Unit:
TF (brigade)
|
C1 C2 C3 Radios HQ merchants
Each of C1,c2,c3 is a Unit made of several elements (as far as French army is concerned, you'd get for infantry 4 infantry elements + 1 radio element or something like that), radios, HQ and merchants at the brigade level are also elements (radio is the same element as the units') but they don't have another cap C4 on top of them, they are directly under the brigade (actually this is a regiment, thus much smaller than a brigade, but is is the same at various scales).

The problem seems to be square and location handling. If I don't check location in TF/command, it means units may end up being very far away one from the other? How do you display a scattered TF, and how does the player give orders to the TF? Like "move there" becomes an order dispatched to all units, but during the dispatch, I need to check the army speeds. On a higher level command, I wouldn't have to do that check.

From the player point of view, a TF is a something physical, so I am not sure I can drop the location controls from it.

I can see the point in grouping TFs into higher level commands (Generals), but the physical TF I think still remains.

Gary, can you elaborate on that?

[Gary Thomas]

I am unsure about what you mean by command.

I mean an organizational structure. It hasn't a physical reality in the sense that a unit has - it is an assignment of units to some directing structure.

Command is currently a TF.

No a TF is a composite unit, not a command.

command would allow for bigger things like brigades etc?

Yes, right up to the whole army. Historically that is how the armed forces of any political entity have been organized. I would much rather tell the army commander "Go on the attack in the West" rather than having to give individual orders to every unit.

Well... I have a (useless by now) General interface which looks like that. What methods would this command object have? I thought General as either a player or AI, whose job is to give orders when there are no orders.

Again, a general is a physical object, a person or character, who might be assigned to an existing command without changing the nature of the command. In a sense a general is external to the command, and, as a physical object, has a location and can be attacked. The command, as such, cannot, though, of course, its components can.

A TF somehow changes the physical abilities of its components, since for instance all units in a TF move at the slowest unit rate:In that sense, a TF is not purely a command.

The movement restriction is not a necessary part of a task force. There are plenty of examples of a force being given an order to get there as fast as possible, thus causing straggling of the force. My suggestion would allow an ordinary movement order (move at the command speed - the speed of the slowest) or a forced march order (move as fast as you can), or, in fact two other types of movement - 1) rendevous at a particular spot, or 2) wait for the rest of the force to catch up.

Also, the difference between Unit and TF is quite artificial since it is just a level of scale. We don't show the Elements to the player so they can only handle Units, but Units are TFs of Elements.

To be honest, I can't see the utility of elements. Since the player can't see them, they do not seem to be a functional part of the game.

The problem seems to be square and location handling.

It is indeed.

If I don't check location in TF/command, it means units may end up being very far away one from the other? How do you display a scattered TF, and how does the player give orders to the TF?

For a start, scattered units in a force is just how it works in the real world. It is only the extremely artificial context of the original Civ games that has forced this restriction. A great many strategy games allow dispersed organizational units. For example (and rather off the top of my head) I would arrange GUI so that if a unit of a force is selected, all the other units (in other squares) of that force get a light red square around them (similar to the movement line now). There would be provision for giving the orders to just the selected unit, or to the whole force.

Like "move there" becomes an order dispatched to all units, but during the dispatch, I need to check the army speeds. On a higher level command, I wouldn't have to do that check.

I am thinking a little ahead to the time when a high level AI is implemented. At that level, generalized orders will be issued. This will filter down the command structure to the actual units, with levels of AI intervening at each stage. Each unit that actually moves will check the speed, getting it from its command object, if the command is moving together, or using its own maximum movement if so ordered. It also allows things like "cautious advance".

From the player point of view, a TF is a something physical, so I am not sure I can drop the location controls from it.

I agree - as I said above, a task force is just a composite unit, restrained to a single location.

I can see the point in grouping TFs into higher level commands (Generals), but the physical TF I think still remains.

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I have no problem with composite units, provided that the composite parts the have no autonomy. I do rather have a reservation about the name task force. A task force is a group assembled for a task. It is not an enduring organizational unit.

On the other hand, with a defined command system, it is unlikely that composite units will be required. That, however, is a play testing matter.

One of the factors that I have in mind is that if subdivided squares are introduced (and I am quite keen on that) to give more realistic micro-terrain then necessarily the military units will be spread over a numbe rof squares. This is an area where elements might come into their own.

Cheers

[Gary Thomas]

To relate this to something in another thread, a command could be assigned shipping in order to cross the English Channel, for example. It would be unrealistic to expect the shipping to always be in the same square, especially if a ferry system (multiple trips) is required to transport the troops.

One of the (many) maddening aspects of Civ is using triremes to transport an army across a stretch of sea. The player should not be forced to that level of micro-management. I would expect a command to recieve an order to move across the water, and have the internal AI manage it.

Cheers

[Gary Thomas]

The possibility of command control radius and command control efficiency is also there. On the other hand maybe that is getting a bit too close to a wargame.

Anyway, the main purpose of this post is to bring me up to 200 posts.

Cheers

[Mark_Everson]

What Gary has to say about hierarchical AI and avoidance of micromanagement is pretty much Clash standard, though I'm not sure Gary has read the previous discussions on this. (did'ja Gary? Like the hierarchical AI thread?) And I certainly think the military structure should be able to support those ideals.

The purpose of Elements are two main ones:
1. Allow creation of units that have combined-arms character, and will have the right feel in terms of battle results.
2. Provide a way for the player to create their own unique units out of a 'palette' of elements. The tech of a civilization will determine which elements are available. This of course assuming we have a Unit-design workshop in the game.

[Gary Thomas]

What Gary has to say about hierarchical AI and avoidance of micromanagement is pretty much Clash standard, though I'm not sure Gary has read the previous discussions on this. (did'ja Gary? Like the hierarchical AI thread?)

I did read them and had them in mind. That was why I felt that the single level command structure is inadequate.

1. Allow creation of units that have combined-arms character, and will have the right feel in terms of battle results.

This is valid only if the "combined arms" part is detectable to the player. At present it is not. However, if a more sophisticated version of the tactical combat of CTP II is introduced (and I am in favour of that) then it could give real character to combat. Otherwise it is just carrying excess weight in the code.

2. Provide a way for the player to create their own unique units out of a 'palette' of elements. The tech of a civilization will determine which elements are available. This of course assuming we have a Unit-design workshop in the game.

I would think that unit design goes beyond just switching unchanging elements around. Presumably the editor will allow the creation of elements, and could just as well create units.

Cheers

[LDiCesare]

My "General" interface was actually meant to be what your "command" would be. The reasoning was that each command is generally held by a General, hence the name. Command could be more appropriate.

Now I understand better, I agree with Gary's point of view, except for elements, which I think are useful in order to produce more units out of less types. For instance, you can have with infantry and cavalry elements many different units: pure infantry, pure cavalry, and mixed, which IMO is a good thing since you don't have to redefine as many figures on the unit level as on the element level.

If you can find a way of showing all units of a given command and give them orders in a single way even though they are scattered, I am all for it.

[Gary Thomas]

My "General" interface was actually meant to be what your "command" would be. The reasoning was that each command is generally held by a General, hence the name. Command could be more appropriate.

I would assume that commands are hierarchical, in the sense that you can lower level command within a higher level command. The thought of a General within a General boggles the mind.

Now I understand better, I agree with Gary's point of view, except for elements, which I think are useful in order to produce more units out of less types. For instance, you can have with infantry and cavalry elements many different units: pure infantry, pure cavalry, and mixed, which IMO is a good thing since you don't have to redefine as many figures on the unit level as on the element level.

I tend to think of a unit as a homogeneous entity. In which case it cannot have different types of component. A unit that is part cavalry, part infantry still seems to me to be two units, one cavalry and one infantry.

If you can find a way of showing all units of a given command and give them orders in a single way even though they are scattered, I am all for it.

The game Stalingrad (if my memory serves me correctly) does it rather nicely.

Cheers

[LDiCesare]

The thought of a General within a General boggles the mind

Actually, generals give orders to other generals so that was the idea.

About units, they are made of various elements. For instance, in WWII, France had a few tanks, but used them not in Panzer companies like the germans, but as 1 tank for many infantries, which was a mixed unit infantry/tank. OK this was really not a good idea, but that is what they did.
Additionnally, elements like engineers can be added to units like legions so legion is basically a mix of infantry and engineers, whereas celtic or greek infantry could have the same infantry elements but no units.

[Gary Thomas]

I realize that units are not nexessarily homogeneous, though in the ancient world most were.

If the element idea is pursued, many second world war units had a few individuals with automatic weapons, a mortar section, and perhaps some AT weapons, not to mention cooks, drivers, and whatever. Elements at this level essentially devolve to the individual soldier.

The ability to shuffle these elements around seems a level of detail that is not visible to the player and, while conceptually elegant for the game designer, with I cannot help feeling, seriously detract from the playability and enjoyment of the game. It is after all a game.

Cheers

[Mark_Everson]

Gary:

If the unit workshop is used, then the effect of elements Will be both controllable and visible to the player. (We plan to have descriptions of battle results given to the player that would ideally say what the key component(s) of victory/defeat were. Not sure you knew that, its buried in one of the mil threads.)

There will be stock units for pretty much every period of history and broad type of unit. Players need never even know about elements. So how can elements Possibly detract from playability and enjoyment??? You can certainly raise the criticism that it raises the Complexity of the system, and potentially without getting enough bang for the buck in terms of fun out of it. But as with much of the rest of clash, a player not concerned with the military will have plenty of tools to execute their strategy without getting down into the small details.

We could decide among us to kill elements in the design, but that basically elimiates the most straightforward (and true to history) way to handle a unit workshop. It would also require redoing much of the mil model, since battles are based on elements as the model currently exists.

However, I agree there may be a case for eliminating elements due to the extra complexity of the system. I'm not a big proponent of elements, and the D4 mil model's fundamental component was the unit. But if we are going to get rid of them we would need Laurent's agreement and an understanding that a unit workshop is probably out. (Krenske was the one who originally put them inthe design, but he's long gone, and so doesn't get a vote.)

[Gary Thomas]

I wasn't actually suggesting that we get rid of elements, merely recording the difficulty I had in accepting their usefulness.

One aspect is that we will have a limited number of icons for troops, so we must accept that the same icon represents different forces, even in the same game. Here I see potential problems.

Cheers

[LDiCesare]

Elements allow for some variety in units. I thnik they can be interesting insofar as they allow to add some scouting abilities to units, and engineering and so forth. They also allow to diminish offensive power based on numbers so the model of fight will probably yield more realistic results than without them.
I think the only concern I have with elements is that the fights may take too long to process, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Also, they might be a problem in terms of memory. Aside from that, I'd rather keep them because it can allow designing of special units, at least through tweaking the xml file, without needing extra unit types or images.

[Gary Thomas]

To change the subject. I was running D5 and ran a Carthaginian cavalry unit through two Roman cities, each with a population of 100,000. The citizens didn't object or raise a militia or anything.

Should cities have an intrinsic defence?

Cheers

[LDiCesare]

It could be done, but the main concern is: What economic consequences would that have? I guess raising a militia would cause loss of productivity for the given turn.