Thread Tools
Old April 29, 2000, 13:20   #1
Stuff2
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 274
Military operations
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'.
Stuff2 is offline  
Old April 30, 2000, 13:38   #2
OrangeSfwr
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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?~~~
 
Old May 1, 2000, 04:29   #3
Hawkman142
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Indianapolis, United States of America
Posts: 9
good ideas, leader rarly have complete control of all of their units.
Hawkman142 is offline  
Old May 1, 2000, 19:57   #4
MidKnight Lament
King
 
MidKnight Lament's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,235
Was this the idea that meant you lost tile-by-tile control of your units?

- MKL
MidKnight Lament is offline  
Old May 2, 2000, 10:30   #5
general_charles
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Brussels Belgium
Posts: 60
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.
general_charles is offline  
Old May 2, 2000, 11:27   #6
Earthling7
Mac
Prince
 
Earthling7's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: of pop
Posts: 735
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
Earthling7 is offline  
Old May 2, 2000, 16:03   #7
Steve Clark
King
 
Steve Clark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:20
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,555
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.
Steve Clark is offline  
Old May 3, 2000, 14:33   #8
general_charles
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Brussels Belgium
Posts: 60
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...
general_charles is offline  
Old May 7, 2000, 17:48   #9
Stuff2
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 274
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 is offline  
Old May 7, 2000, 17:58   #10
Stuff2
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 274
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 ;-)
Stuff2 is offline  
Old May 10, 2000, 06:02   #11
Grier
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: of Sheffield, England
Posts: 232
I think its a great idea, but it wouldnt be civ. Nuff said.
Grier is offline  
Old May 10, 2000, 17:41   #12
Stuff2
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 274
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).
Stuff2 is offline  
Old May 10, 2000, 20:39   #13
Par4
King
 
Par4's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:20
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,543
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
Par4 is offline  
Old May 10, 2000, 21:53   #14
MidKnight Lament
King
 
MidKnight Lament's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,235
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
MidKnight Lament is offline  
Old May 12, 2000, 03:46   #15
Youngsun
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Darwin,NT,Australia
Posts: 562
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?
Youngsun is offline  
Old May 12, 2000, 11:15   #16
Stuff2
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:20
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 274
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.
Stuff2 is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:20.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team