Apolyton Archive  |  Preserved copy of the Apolyton Civilization Site forums as they ran on Ultimate Bulletin Board, 1998–2001. Read-only; nothing here can be posted to or replied to.  |  Forum index |  About this archive |  The 2005 site & forums

  Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
  Civ3-General/Suggestions
  Military operations

Post New Topic  Post A ReplyPost A Reply In A New Window

profile | register | preferences | faq | search next newest topic | next oldest topic bottom of page
Author Topic:   Military operations            Current Date/Time: May 12, 2000 11:15:07
Stuff2
Chieftain

Sep 1999
posted April 29, 2000 13:20   Click Here to See the Profile for Stuff2 
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
I know that i have already presented this idea before. But i still think it would be a better alternative than stupid military generals aimlessly moving around half of your units.

Instead of having 'real' units u have a lot of men and alot of war equippment. U take some of the trained men (for simplicity let's say that they always are counted in hundreds; 100, 200 etc)And u give them military tasks.
A task will always eventually come to an end, when the job is done or when the war is over or after xx turns.
Here u can also have tasks that starts with certian events. "If China declares war then send 5000 infantry men to Delhi".
It can be very useful to know the future plans of an enemy. If u are lucky your spy may lead u straight to an opponents 'military operations window'.

OrangeSfwr
Warlord
Pennsylvania
Feb 2000
posted April 30, 2000 13:38   Click Here to See the Profile for OrangeSfwrClick Here to Email OrangeSfwrVisit OrangeSfwr's Homepage!
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
I like the idea of your spies seeing other civs military operation plans.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

Hawkman142
Settler
Indianapolis, United States of America
May 2000
posted May 01, 2000 04:29   Click Here to See the Profile for Hawkman142Click Here to Email Hawkman142
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
good ideas, leader rarly have complete control of all of their units.
MidKnight Lament
Prince
Melbourne, Australia
May 99
posted May 01, 2000 19:57   Click Here to See the Profile for MidKnight LamentClick Here to Email MidKnight LamentVisit MidKnight Lament's Homepage! Send a Message to UIN: 16823806
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
Was this the idea that meant you lost tile-by-tile control of your units?

- MKL

general_charles
Chieftain
Brussels Belgium
Apr 2000
posted May 02, 2000 10:30   Click Here to See the Profile for general_charlesClick Here to Email general_charles Send a Message to UIN: 48245753
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
I think it is a good idea, but maybe the game should concentrate more on support, not only shields but other stuff as well, munitions, food, links to the main land/cities for the wounded, etc... This support thing could be well defended by your idea, you could assign boats, airplanes and troops to guard your links with the main land without having to micromanage their every move.
Earthling7
Chieftain
Square 74, 127
Jul 1999
posted May 02, 2000 11:27   Click Here to See the Profile for Earthling7Click Here to Email Earthling7 Send a Message to UIN: 929768
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
No offence, but I think this would make the military model way too complex. If you want a military simulation that is as real as a bullet in the head, go for panzer general or something.

I think the beauty of the Civ games is the simplicity in which the complex world is presented. Adding too much for the sake of realism will surely kill gameplay.

I think the only thing that needs to be modified is the ballte system and possibly that building military units will require populatuion as well as recourses.

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

Steve Clark
Prince
Colorado Springs, CO
Oct 1999
posted May 02, 2000 16:03   Click Here to See the Profile for Steve Clark 
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
I agree with Earthling7, as a wargamer, I definitely don't want Civ to become one. It works beautifully as an abstracted, civilization-building strategy game. Let's not lose sight of that and turn Civ3 into something that it's not.

That goes for many of the suggestions appearing recently. Civ2 works well on its own even though it doesn't have the trade details of Imperialism (as I've read), the battle details of the Talonsoft games, the historical city-building models of Pharaoh, etc. or the exploration details of Conquest of the New World. Those games (plus more like them) all have one thing in common - they are not Civilization.

general_charles
Chieftain
Brussels Belgium
Apr 2000
posted May 03, 2000 14:33   Click Here to See the Profile for general_charlesClick Here to Email general_charles Send a Message to UIN: 48245753
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
I do agree that the point of civ is not to make a realistic war game, there are other great games for this, but is it realistic to have military units the way they were, is it realistic that when you had 10 riflemen in one square and you get attacked by 1 musketeer that gets lucky and kills you, how can you say that it actually killed the nine others by doing nothing???
I think that an idea that was brought up and which consists on giving a goal to your army is quite good, for example, you are germany and you attack the russians, just say: "take Stalingrad", what else could Hitler do to make sure his troops did succeed???
However, to compensate this lack of control of your troops, you should be able to control how your troops get reinforcement, fuel, munitions, etc...
Stuff2
Chieftain

Sep 1999
posted May 07, 2000 17:48   Click Here to See the Profile for Stuff2 
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
earthling...

This idea is not only "for the sake of realism". My thought with it was mostly to avoid some problems that really irritates me in civ2. These problems are:

- Having so many units that u cant keep track of all of them.
- Have so many units that u keep forget the specific units role in your military strategy. "Was this unit supposed to be in the attack of Berlin or was it supposed to defend the fortress outside Moscow?"
- Ai-units just moving around with no purpose and just use alot of computerpower.
- Not being able to coordinate battleplans (well u can in smac but it's still not good enough)
- No window where u can control all your military operations.
- Not being able to spy on other civs military plans and operation.
- No realism in units moving 100 km in 20 years. (Sure u could make increase units movements rate ten times but that would only lead to too much micromanegement)
- A unit entering a city will always attack it.

There are also some advantages that I see in my idea:

- It's easy to link military operation with your economy. Every operation will cost u money and resources.
- U can control all your empires military operations from one window, not having to scroll around on the entire map.
- If you are a peaceloving player you don't have to spend half of your time building units or moving units.

Not forget all the other reasons i've already posted.

Stuff2
Chieftain

Sep 1999
posted May 07, 2000 17:58   Click Here to See the Profile for Stuff2 
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
quote:

Originally posted by MidKnight Lament on 05-01-2000 07:57 PM
Was this the idea that meant you lost tile-by-tile control of your units?

- MKL

Yep. It was. But i'm not impossible. tile-by-tile control can be included as an option for those who feel that the military units will desert if they don't watch them closely enough and guide them every step of the way ;-)

Grier
Chieftain
Reading,England
Feb 2000
posted May 10, 2000 06:02   Click Here to See the Profile for GrierClick Here to Email Grier
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
I think its a great idea, but it wouldnt be civ. Nuff said.
Stuff2
Chieftain

Sep 1999
posted May 10, 2000 17:41   Click Here to See the Profile for Stuff2 
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
I have developed my idea some. I've tried to incorporate the recruiment also.

I'll try to explain it even though my english isn't very good.

First:
- We have men
- We have equippment
- We have money
- We have training facilities (maybe, not necessarily but training will take longer time without it)

Step two: We pay money
equipp the men and train them...voila: They are now ready to beacome a part of your army.

Step three: Once a military operation is needed u grab a bunch of soldiers and form them into a unit. Different kinds of soldiers cannot be formed into one unit. For example riflemen and archers cannot exist in the same unit. several units can be a part of same military operations. If u don't like the military operation window there is a feature that make your unit alive on the screen being able to control that way.

When an unit on the 'field' has lost men u can always grab some new men to replace those that have disappeared. This "reinforce" option is always presented whenever needed (after battles).

Since people always die (if not beacouse of war then beacouse of old age) i suggest that your army will always decrease which means that in order to upkeep an standing army you have to make new recruitment all the time.

Beacouse of the ease and speed you can mobilize an army (maybe 2 to 10 years depending on infrastructure and money invested) it's not needed to always have an giant standing army. If u find out that an oppnent is mobilizing an army you can be pretty sure that war is going to break out(maybe not with you but you can never be too sure).

Par4
Chieftain
Land o Golf
May 2000
posted May 10, 2000 20:39   Click Here to See the Profile for Par4  Send a Message to UIN: 73426191
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
I like the idea. I like being able to lower the amount of active units during times of peace thus lowering costs and support. But I agree with Grier it doesn't seem like civ, the army idea has alot of ideas the same as this but is more like civ.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

MidKnight Lament
Prince
Melbourne, Australia
May 99
posted May 10, 2000 21:53   Click Here to See the Profile for MidKnight LamentClick Here to Email MidKnight LamentVisit MidKnight Lament's Homepage! Send a Message to UIN: 16823806
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
There's some good idea in there, but I'm more stuck on what these "missions" are. To date you haven't gone into much detail there.

Ok, here's an example. I want to take an enemy city with a variety of units (or armies or whatever). I want to gather them from a bunch of different cities, railroad them to a central point where I can gather my forces. I want a main force to head straight to the enemy city via the fastest terrain possible, with a couple of more mobile units flanking on either side, to make sure enemy units from other cities can't get in to help defend the enemy city. I want these mobile units to kill any settlers on sight, but otherwise they should fortify to cut off enemy units using their ZOCs. The main force should bombard until the city is able to be taken with infantry.

That's a rather long example, but not all that uncommon for a game of Civ. How would you go about doing this with missions? How many missions would you use in that example? How much would you be relying on the units to do what you want? I want to be able to move my armies in that sort of detail (and much more). Are missions going to make this easier or harder?

- MKL

Youngsun
Warlord
Darwin,NT,Australia
Jan 2000
posted May 12, 2000 03:46   Click Here to See the Profile for YoungsunClick Here to Email Youngsun
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
Stuff2

quote:

First:
- We have men
- We have equippment
- We have money
- We have training facilities (maybe, not necessarily but training will take longer time without it)

This is exactly what I wanted for a long time!

"Men" will be provided by extracting some portion of your population I guess.

Equipments? are they just weapons or whole bunch of other things like ammunitions or other equipments like trucks for motorised infantry or horses for cavalry?

For "training facilities", I reckon these should be vital for producing bulk of modern army.(especially for air force and navy. army too!)

Army mobilisation should be dealt with on national level and all the conscripted soldiers should be fed and paid by the national government not a individual parent city.

"military operation window" I don't understand this. what have you in mind?

Stuff2
Chieftain

Sep 1999
posted May 12, 2000 11:15   Click Here to See the Profile for Stuff2 
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
Here is some answers to your questions:

quote:


Equipments? are they just weapons or whole bunch of other things like ammunitions or other equipments like trucks for motorised infantry or horses for cavalry?

equipments is everything that is needed for making the soldier a soldier. Weapons, shielding eqipment, horses, trucks etc.

quote:


"military operation window" I don't understand this. what have you in mind?

The military operation window is a window where all your ongoing military operations are listed.

quote:


There's some good idea in there, but I'm more stuck on what these "missions" are. To date you haven't gone into much detail there.

This is true. With missions i mean where u send a unit and in which purpose. The purpose can be:

- Attack
- Defend
- Destroy xxx
- Piracy
- Police
- Guarding border
- Blockade

I can't think of any more right now but there should be some more options. During this missions u also have some other options that tell how the unit will respond to situations. These situations are regarding civilians, rebellions, surrending armys (POW).

They are:
- Kill
- Torture
- Humiliate
- Take as slave
- Imprison
- Punish
- Disarm
- Ignore

Also you have an option on how much pillage.

What information do you get in the military operation window?

I'll give an example:

The military operation:
- Attack Berlin until army is dead (or Berlin captured)

- Ignore civilans
- Kill rebellions
- Take surrendering armys as slaves
- Pillage: Don't bother

The status of the status of the units:
- wellfed
- well equipped
- good health
- 4000 riflemen of 4200 riflemen (200 are dead without being replaced)
- 25% trained
- 10% experienced

I hope i have clarified my idea some more with this.

Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
> > > Civ3-General/Suggestions Forum

next newest topic | next oldest topictop of page

All times are EDT

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A ReplyPost A Reply In A New Window
Hop to:

Contact Us
Apolyton Civilization Site

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.44a
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Front Page | Civilization III | Dinosaurs | Civilization II | Call to Power | Call to Power II | Alpha Centauri | Alternative Civs | Misc | Links | About ACS | GameStats
GameLeague | Scenario League | Hodadian Award Central | Civilization Scenario Collection | Spanish CivII Site | Clash of Civs | CtP Maps