Range effects modeling in the combat resolution model. (Other than what I have posted already (Cuz I really don't like it))

Supplies and forage

Local recruiting of levies from enemy territory (Kinda ties into supply)

Warning... I am using my dictation software to produce these posts. This can result in really weird typo is. If I say something you don't understand trying substituting a "sounds like" phrase for the thing that looks really bizarre, and sometimes you can figure out the meaning.

There are several big issues that I would like to address. I'm sure you all have your own lists... As I said before mine are more the things leading to combat in a specific square, and related to it, rather than the actual combat that happens in the single square. However, I think getting basic agreement on these things leading to combat is Essential. I think the actual combat/battle model can be polished in a lot of ways after these decisions are laid down. Before we've reached complete agreement on them, I think it's possible to end up with a combat system that makes a lot of sense in the single square, but doesn't connect well to the rest of the game.

The basic areas I think are important are:
1. Establishing a link between movement outside of battle and any battles that may be happening.
2. The basic way units are built, maintain, and supplied (not a lot of detail, just a general outlines)

1a. Strategic movement rates... the player should have the choice of moving their units at a variety of rates. The maximum rate will be set by things like unit composition, road and bridges infrastructure, prepositions supplies, etc. However, ratcheting down from the maximum possible movement rate there should be a variety of choices (we have talked about this before) from forced march (maximum) down too cautious advance. Whether a unit can be surprised, or put in a disadvantage in a coming battle should be affected by these movement choices. We also need to figure out the connection between the movement rate on the main map, and Harli's scouting phase. If we end up using phases (ticks) the distance traveled per tick will depend on the basic movement speeds selected.

1b. Connection between outside units and battles. Basically what I'm talking about here is the logical extension of the simple support mechanism in demo 4. For one thing, a real modern battle will sometimes take place in an area significantly larger than a single square. We need to have rules for how a TF can join a contest in a single square. For instance in a large fluid engagement like the battle of Kursk... overtime during the engagements (during a single turn IMO) units should be able to enter the contest in adjacent squares. For instance, I can see nothing so irritating to the the player as having a large task force that annihilated the enemy in its square (say, during the scouting phase) being unable to Ever make it to help in the closely-fought battle sequence immediately adjacent until a whole other turned goes by. Such a series of battles, according to Harli is model could go for many battles, clearly plenty of time for some armor that is only 50 miles away to enter the fight at some point later than the initial part of the first engagement.

1c. Another thing we need to nail down is whether task force movement is simply square-by-square, or more continuous. A continuous movement system, or you keep track of Where the unit is within each square is clearly more complicated, but has some advantages. The main advantage is that you can capture a different movement rates much better. For instance in civ, you can only have strategic movement differences that are very large in terms of movement rates, because you're either move a whole square or you don't. So we need to discuss whether we want to use continuous or by-square movement (before battle)

2. We've already discussed building units, and supplied somewhat. I don't think the issues here are as big as in the movement regime. It seems we're agreed that building units requires real amounts of population, and combining them with weapons, training, and possibly doctrine. In terms of maintenance and supply, I think Harli's simplified system presented before should be given a shot. At some point we will have the merchant coding functional, and see how difficult it would be to do Real supply. But that may be too computationally expensive. There will also be a variety of mobilization levels I think, and we can work out the details on exactly what these are. There has already been some mention of this in the economics model in the miscellaneous section. But I'm sure we can work up something better and a few quick ideas that are there.

No force could get aniahliated during the Scout phase, technicaly all battles would go up to the the assulat phase, or if a withdrawl is ordered to the witdrawl phase or if that fails to the pursuit phase.

Also I really don't buy the idea of armies abmusing each other. On a smaller scale it happens but not a big army level. The scout phase reflects the commander trying to pin down exactly where the enemy is so that they can deply their forces in the best manner to deal with the enemy (the manouver phase)

I'm not sure how to handle Kursk style engagments other than to say that they should just be fough as individual battles if they are in seperate squares... Perhaps we could use something like in EIA where there is a possiblity based on the commander of reinfrcing an adjecent battle or something...

as for the continous moment idea it is cool, and so far I have assumed square by square movment. It would force me to reevalute the comat model in terms of it but I don't think that it would be a huge proble. Maily I would have to design a pre-battle section

Resolve range issue

Problem: don't want the range thing to turn into a tactical combat system.
Solutions:
1. Roll it into one thing
Use tactics, mobility rating and ranged firepower rating rolled into one to determine casualties, also use commitment/aggressiveness level

Range effects,
Depends on several factors, local tactics used and terrain mainly

Local tactics
Defend (dig in/hold position and shoot as much as possible)
Assault (Charge the enemy and close to hand to hand range)
Maneuver (Try to maintain fixed distance from enemy while firing)

So if you are defending infantry versus an assaulting cavalry charge you get X number of shots
If you are a Mongol horse archer attacking Knights, you would use your advantage of mobility to use indirect fire on them, and get X shots before you withdraw

These things are modified by terrain.
Also mobility is also affected by terrain

Casualties per element per phase should be on the order of ~10% max for the 1st 2 phases in modern times.
It should be noted that almost all heavy casualties and destruction of armies historically occurs in what I term the pursuit phase, i.e. the phase where the enemy's morale is broken and they are retreating. If the battle goes to this phase (rather than the withdrawal phase) then heavy casualties should be expected. The main difference in modern times is that usually the battle will proceed to the withdrawal phase and thus avoid heavy casualties

This system should be able to model things such as: The steppe horse archers, which no one really found a counter to, only other horse archers. The advent of the long range rifle in the civil war that put the rifle as the premier defensive weapon. The reverse of this in the first world in terms of artillery (note: using bombardment at the end of the scout and maneuver phases reflects this IMO, just as long as you have enough arty to do it)

Ex: In the civil war, primitive entrenchment's put the defensive infantry in a position of primacy on the battlefield. This effect would be exacerbated stuff like bolt action rifles.

2. Use my pre proposed system of movement and fire along the 1D range band with multiple resolutions.
Problems: This seems awfully tactical to me, and in those terms really unrealistic since it is 1D…

Supply
We need to also model foraging as a function of civs? Or during different time periods or as af unction of tech. (well certainly as a function of tech)
Also I want to take a look at recruiting local troops to fight for an army that is far from home, Historically this happened during roman times (2nd Punic war; Hannibal recruited Italians in Italy to fight for him against Rome.), and medieval times.

I'm trying to look over the old models for range...

I just saw you're newer post, but haven't really had chance to read or respond to them. In terms of square size, for now a square is assumed to be 60 miles (100 kilometers) on the side. It's possible they might be twice as big is that were so if it turns out there are just too many squares for us to handle in the map, which is currently 320x 200.

Um as to the time scale thing, It has been dicussed but I'm not sure what the actual concensus was. From what I heard it all sounded reasonable... I was knd of partial to dividing each yearinto 12 months and letting the computer resolve that kind of stuff but the other things I heard were pretty good. Actually in terms of that, 12 months would be fine for modern wars, but I think that a 6 month turn would be fine for ancient and something like 4 3 month turns would be ok for say napoleonic... Again this would all be handeled by the computer so that the player wouldn't really be involved.

Army's Ambushing...
it's not exactly army's ambushing each other, but obtaining relative advantage leading into the scouting phase. If an Army screams in at maximum rate not knowing much about the terrain it is going to be at a severe disadvantage to someone who has had a chance to already scout the ground etc.. But anyway, I don't think this is a critical thing for us to worry about right at the moment.

Kursk...
I think armies can have fairly straightforward pre-programmed orders like: first priority is achieve objective of taking x square. If that succeeds, support friendly troops as much as possible... this sounds kind of like the system you are citing which I'm not familiar with.

Continuous movement...
I think it has a lot of potential advantages, but also some disadvantages in terms of complexity. After you thought about it a bit, let me know which way you think we should go on it.

Range effects for combat within a square...
your model number one looks better to me to at the moment. I think it is Quite sufficiently complex. If we can get the interaction of terrain, mobility, and range more or less correct, we will already be going Way beyond what is available in the genre. Also I think a system that doesn't produce huge surprises (which range proposal 2 might do depending on troop placement) will be a big advantage for the AI.

Ok, I can easily insert a modifier based on the amount of leftover movment (in using soemthing like the tic system) into the scouting phase (one of the beauties of the system, as many modifiers as you want ) So thats no biggie...

Kursk I agree that the AI should be intellignet enough to deal with large battles like that. Also the time scale for one battle in one hex I currently have is about a day for ancient -- napoleonic times and maybe half a day or less for modern times. Like I pointeed out eralier more than one battle per square is possible, it would take a few days. I think this is pretty realisitc considering the square scale. (since modern warfare is pretty mobile forces would give ground more readily wheras napoleonic armies would fight for a few days in the same square)

Well the thing is I'm trying to avoid a 1D tactical system like I initally proposed. Actually I think a divsion between direct fire and bombardment weapons also needs to be made, it is refleced in the 1-10 scale that kerense uses but Ithink we can just mash it down to 3 catagories like I had originally and just try to model the effects of longer range weapons.

As for the local troops: I agree that is diplomacy but I think it should be readily avialble in the premodern era, since it happened pretty regularly. Esp into the napoloenoic era using the idea of using "wild" troops i.e. zouaves and the like.

Also are there any ideas about mercnearies currently?

I'll let you know about the continous move model though to be conservative at this point and say that it might be better to stay with a more traditional model....

On timescales...

I am going to be one of the guys doing the AI. Your and Krenske's alternative of having the computer run things for 12 military mini-turns during a year is simply not going to work IMO. Even a brilliant computer AI will not be able to do what the player would want to do it each juncture, it's just impossible. Way too much can happen in the year. The player can't even give orders that far enough ahead because so much can happen in the year. General orders based on the success of an initial operational level flight, can easily be invalidated if the fight turns out to be a disaster, or a great success. To model where the AI handles it would trundle along with the same old orders for a whole year before the player got a chance to respond. IMO, in order to get this one real world detail right, you'll end up with endless player frustration. I think we just have to sacrifice reality when reality conflict with fun.

So, could we let the players actually run all the turns that you envision?
I think your proposal for how long the military turns might be it is reasonable, but if you just add up the number of turns that would require, it is Enormous.
Ancient (six months turns) if we do about 6000 years over ancient history, that's 12,000 turns
Napoleonic (4 turns per year) over a 100 year period That's 400 more turns
modern (12 turns per year) over 100 year period That's 1200 more turns.
All of civ is only 400 or 500 turns!

IMO you need to accept the fact that military actions are Not going to take the right amount of time. It's an abstraction that makes the whole idea of a civ-type game work.

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

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.

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.

I kind of like the saving up movment idea. It seems like a good comprimise and wouldn't really neccesitate any design changes of my system.

As for the battles... The reinforcng for the second battle is exactly how the system would work. As for the time scale there I think that the 1 day isn't a bad idea. Its realistic and if we take into account the fact that the "combat time" of any army is something like 1% then it works out fine...

Grand Ideas and definitons:

In terms of the big idea in time scale. OK, if we look at how long campaings lasted and how many major battles were fought in that time we can figure out a rough number of fightable battles per given amount of time in the game. From there we can adjust sacles. This gives a good feel for stuff IMO. Also I like the idea f not telling the player what year it is in that case... IF we go that way, I vote that all operations then would be army level. since that is what we are simulating. Again this reinforces the TF concept. For example napoleonic armies averaged ~2000-100K troops. so we say the smallest meaingfull enagamnt has to have at least 10K troops and base TF's around that kind of idea... This would avoid small actions and just focus on the big battles of the eras (which are the ones that had the politcal ramificatons)

mark personally i love RTS games

ok one thing i would like to be resolved is this...

for a full battle to take place, i fell that units have to be in the same square, like in the demo...supporting actions could happen but to fully engage in battle the TFs must be in the same square

I agree to that. Thats all my model models
Reinforcment would take place between individual battles...

ok but to reinforce a TF you have to have the reinforcements move into that suare, and this will cost movement even if they are in the adjacent square

Harli: (for your posts of 12:01)

I'm glad you think saving a movement is OK. Another alternative is to do kind of like what is done in civ. Specifically if you have a phase and can't get completely to the next square, you could have a chance of getting to the neck square which is proportional to your movement left compared to the movement necessary to get to the neck square.

OK, if we can get the reinforcement to work right, I don't have any problems with the system.

Time with you on your last paragraph, I think getting the rough number of finable battles per amount of gametime right is the most important thing. I agree that were mainly only interested in the big battles. Although once the get the scale set right for the big battles, small battles could be just fought according to the same rules.

K1 discussion...
agree Completely. People can't fight unless there in the same square So a reinforcement actually has to be able to make it into the square to affect either the initial battle, or a subsequent one. I think if we just let history be our guide as to whether a potential supporting TF could reach the battle, or the next one, we will be in good shape.

Umm... Kinda
Way I see it if the unit has left over movment it would increase the chance of reinforcment. But it should still be possible. History is litterd with examples of fantastic achievents of movment in a short time. So I think it should be possible, if unlikely...

ok using the tick system here is something that can happen

in this battle there are three TFs

the roman 12th legion (4 units)

the carthaginian 11th levies (5 units)
the carthaginian 4th cav (4 units)

the romans 12th moves at a rate of 3 action points (ticks) per square

the carthaginian 11th moves at a rate of 3 ticks per square

the carthaginian 4th moves at a rate of 2 ticks per square

the roman 12th and the carth 11th moves into a square at the same time, and start a battle

2 ticks later the carth 4th into the square and starts, battle will ensue...but how do you think we should handle it?

i was thinking that since they are different TFs that the roman 12th should be in two overlapping battles, or it could just join the battle but extend the amount of ticks that the battle takes

Ok, yeah I agree that smaller stuff can be fought according to the same rules but I jsut wanted to point out that if we go with the big army model the amount of small battles fough will be historally low. I am ok with that if other people are, since some examples historically can be found (Palestine WWI was fought with pretty small forces while europe had big armies etc.)

Ok that sounds fine, just so you know I really don't have tick thing down totally yet, and I'm not sure if we are gonna use it. Personally I am focusing on getting the battle resolution done first. While you guys work on the rest of it...

mark

how about this

a skirmish takes 2 actions out of the 10

a probing action takes 3 ticks out of 10

a normal battle takes 4 ticks out of the 10

ok here is how ticks work

Gentlemen... it sounds to me like we have a reasonable enough agreement on the issues we've been addressing. As Harli says, perhaps a division of labor would work out best on this.

Ok, First of all 2 task forces in a square would be amalgameted into one and commanded by one general.
Why?
A: Its simple
B: It is pretty ralistic, one genarl has overall control, and since we are handling the manouver etc phases of battle it doesn't matter. Though there will be a control penalty for big forces... I take C^3 into account in my model...

Two, battles taking up a lot of time... I disagree with this, for one it's way too small scale. For two the current model doesn't do limited engagments (Though they can be modeledby commitment level) But my main point is that the scale your talking about is way way too small...