civ3 and the problem of the vietnam war

[korn469]

ok with civ2 and SMAC (i really can't say about CtP) it is nearly impossible to simulate the vietnam war

how could you make it so that in civ3 a vietnam could actually beat a US?

all suggestions are welcome and hopefully we can work out a game play system to solve this problem

korn469

[yin26]

Well, if you introduced a government type that fought "limited wars" along with citizens in that country who begin to revolt each turn as the war goes on along with huge "indigenous terrain" bonuses (i.e., natives use the jungle, underground tunnels much better, etc.), then you would quickly have a situation in which you'd either be forced to change your government, buy off your people, sign a truce, and/or plan your attack much better next time so you can hopefully win the war VERY quickly (which of course, would mean send most or all your amassed forces to one area of the map, leaving you wide open for backdoor attacks from angry countries). In other words, it might be a great idea simply NOT to fight such a war, as with Vietnam.

Oh, and throw in the United Nations. THAT will really screw you up!

These things don't seem too hard to implement, do they?
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited May 18, 2000).]

[raingoon]

Korn, interesting question.

First thing comes to mind is unit morale.

Second thing would be domestic happiness, as in Civ 2 but on a much broader scale, under the heading of domestic politics suggestion in EC3.

I think Civ 2 got it right, fundamentally, by tying democracy and happiness penalties for war together. The defeat of the United States in Vietnam essentially boils down to U.S. unwillingness to commit sufficient force to overwhelm the oppositional forces.

So Civ 3 would need to create enough high stakes at home as to make the cost of total military commitment WAY high. That speaks to the issue of "unwillingness to commit."

As for "oppositional forces" Civ 3 would have to model at least the following:

1. Significant military bonuses for defending home territory. Bonuses would be GREATLY increased the longer one occupied said territory. I.e., you wouldn't get it if you had only recently taken the territory.

2. Perhaps to go along with the bonus to the home team, a military penalty for the visitors. But conversely, the longer you fight there the lesser the penalty until there would be no penalty. But it would be VERY costly to last that long.

3. And of course the ability for a small independent nation to be supported by a superpower in a war against that superpower's greatest enemy.

Just top of my head. Again, good question.

I had the same thoughts about Northern Ireland with regards to the Religion Model. But that's another thread...

[Youngsun]

Korn I think "Vietnamese war" is not very good example for "David vs Goliath" idea.

First of all, it was not entirely USA vs N.Vietnam. It was more like unwilling corrupted S.Vietnam, which was heavily supported by USA, fighting against N.Vietnam

What people said as their popular anti-war slogans? "don't interfere", "pull out",things like that right? too many excuses to go anti-war sentiment.

Why USA beaten by N.Vietnam?

1.losing support from the local population
2.corrupted South vietnamese officials and less determined army.(compared to its northern counterpart)
3.not clear military objectives.
4.Strong measures couldn't be taken due to fear of WWIII such as bombing the supply route from China to N.Vietnam.
5.not clear front line due to the locals supporting Vietcongs and neutral status of Cambodia which was the main supply/communication route for vietcongs.

If Mexico or Canada was engaged with USA what would have happen? Can people in USA can say "pull out" or "don't interfere" I don't think so. That's why we need direct major power vs minor power example not major power supporting a minor power against another minor power. Roman empire vs Parthia(maybe not minor power), Mongol empire vs Japan or US government vs Apaches can an example whether they(minors)lose or not.

[korn469]

i feel asleep as i was typing this post sorry about that

youngsun, i think the mechanics of why the US lost are a good example to use for getting the game play reasons why a goliath could lose to a david...i know there are some historians out there so if you could think of the ideal situation where a vastly inferior nation soundly defeats a superior nation completely on its own then please by all means post it

ok in my opinion SMAC has fixed the most unrealistic part of warfare in the civ genre...in civ2 you could nuke the capital of a large peaceful civ and paradrop into that city and then the next turn they would hold a "we love the president" day for you...at least in SMAC they will hate you for the despot you are...

but in SMAC warfare here is the worst example i can think of

you have two civs...the green civ and the yellow civ

the green civ is dem/FM/know/cybernetic and has lots of high tech weapons

the yellow civ is dem/FM/wealth/eudimonic and is trying for a transcend victory

well the green civ has 8 units based out of a poor man's punishment sphere...a poor man's punishment sphere is a base that you home all of your offensive units to when you have a bad police rating and you then turn all of that city's population into specialists...that way you have circumvented the drone penalty associated with having an army...you can use supply crawlers for the minerals you need for support

so the green civ takes a city from the yellow civ...the territory surrounding that civ now changes to the green civ...suddenly the yellow civ now has drone riots because of units it had stationed around the base it just lost while the green civ could now home it's ground units to the recently conquered city and not have to worry about drone riots, because it's units are in "friendly" territory...that is wrong

suggestion: to fix this problem when you take a city, the territory should become "occupied" territory, until the city you just took gets assimilated...basically occupied territory would still count as home territory to the civ who formerly owned the territory...when the captured city gets assimilated the territory changes from occupied territory to home territory...occuppied territory should be visable on the map

suggestion: poor man's punishment spheres need to be ended...two easy ways to fix this are, one all cities must have at the very least one worker (this would also combat ICS) and other way would be for half the drones to directly effect the home city of the units and the other half of the drones to effect random parts of your civ...that would keep a single city from supporting your entire army and completely circumventing the associated penalties...shakespere's(sp?) theater anyone?

suggestion: instead of having massive defense bonuses to certain terrain how about this...when a unit is in it's home territory then it recieves a special morale bonus...this bonus represents all of the factors that influence people to fight for their home land...the only thing would be that the civ would have to have popular support for this bonus to work...if the cities were in riots there would be no bonus, it still needs some work but that should be the foundation of the idea

suggestion: in SMAC they had "golden ages" this happened when certain criteria were met, actually it was called an intellectual golden age...it is my opinion that civ3 should have more than one type of golden ages...lets say an intellectual golden age, an economic golden age, and a military golden age...i will discuss the military golden age...when your city experianced a military golden age a few things would happen...reguardless of your current SE settins this city would become immune to being mind controlled, and it would have increased support and military units from a city in a military golden age (for lack of a better term) would recieve a fanatic bonus on both offense and defense...this would be in addition to the home territory morale bonus...i need suggestions for what exactly would trigger a military golden age and what would end it...but i can think of a real world example of what i mean...at the end of WW2 the Japanese defenders fought with a great deal of determination...i was watching the history channel the other day and i think they said that on iwo jima that somethink like 20 japanese surrendered or were captured and like the rest of the 22,000 fought to the death (please correct me if i am wrong)...the iraeli mentality that while the arabs can lose one or two or three or however many wars that they can't ever lose a single war...military golden ages would be most likely when either your civ had an unbroken line of successes or when your back was to the wall (some civ would just give up, others would fight to the bitter end)...we could also have a wonder that either puts all of your cities into a military golden age or greatly increases the chance that they will go into a military golden age...there was a quote on the history channel about the japanese general

quote: bushido code: this wonder increases the chance that your cities will experiance a military golden age ...Me and my men haven't eaten or drank in five days and we are surrounded on all sides. Our fighting spirit remains high.

suggestion: and my last suggestion is to bring up an old topic...war penalties

though i believe that no form of government should be immune to war penalties i think that some governments should have an acute awarness of war penalties (democracies) and others should almost be immune to war penalties (fascism maybe?)

war penalties are basically happiness plus economic penalties that take place if your civ has been at war for too long...for war penalties to be effective civ3 has to be able to distinguish a few things about a war

1. who is winning? self explainitory
2. what kind of war is it? is this a defensive war against your arch enemy or is this a needless war over some unimportant chunck of land?

well that's all for now

korn469

[tniem]

The United States really did not fight the Vietnam War in an effort to win.

If you wanted to create a Vietnam War scenario, create the U.S. without military production capabilities, so it can't send more troops. Then simply place units in Vietnam where they will slowly get slaughtered by the Vietnemese units being built by the North Vietnemese cities and troops that China and maybe the USSR send to assist in the war effort. It may not be practical but it is the closest thing to why the U.S. lost the war, we did not use our full force in the effort.

[War4ever]

one way might be to give bonuses to the troops fighting in the jungle like Colonization did with your troops when you fought for independance from the mother land.

Every troop the homeland sent to squash the rebellion was better than your best troop, unless you were fighting in the forest where you received a 50% bonus for "knowing" the terrain is this feasible in civ2, i do not know, perhaps Korn can answer

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 05-18-2000 03:34 PM The United States really did not fight the Vietnam War in an effort to win. If you wanted to create a Vietnam War scenario, create the U.S. without military production capabilities, so it can't send more troops.

Maybe one U.S city, cannot build ships, has an airport, so does Saigon. Cannot build settlers. This should give you a new American unit every few turns, but not new American cities every few turns...

Venger

[Par4]

Vietnam was not a war we wanted to win. It was to stimulate the economy and help the Great Society. I agree you would have to make production impossible for the United States and only send infantry every 6 months for as long as the support is there for the US but give the N Koreans, Chinese and Russian units and reinforcements regularly. No nuking. A popular support rating in which infantry divisions are removed and reinforcements cut off for the US is needed too. N Koreans have production of infantry no tanks no planes no ships. US wins if it captures all N Korean cities. N Korea wins if it holds off long enough to make the US pull out or captures all S Korean cities. United States has bases but no cities on the map.

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

[Youngsun]

quote: I think the mechanics of why the US lost are a good example to use for getting the game play reasons why a goliath could lose to a david

I agree. as Yin suggested "terrain bonuses" given to the natives or as Raingoon said "small independent nation to be supported by a superpower in a war against that superpower's greatest enemy".

Conqured territory needs assimilation I agree.

Special morale bonus? sounds good.

Military golden age? good good

Actually fanatical fighting spirit of the Japanese troops during WWII may be explained through intense patrioticism and ultimate sacrifice for their emperor(Tenno)and there are many more factors have to be considered for this such as their culture, characteristics(Shimaguni-gonjo)and pride(enormous at the time of WWII). Bushido is just part of these many factors not the only reason they fought well. I don't think many people in other nationalities would fight that fanatically with ultimate sacrifice if bushido get introduced to them. Even without Bushido they(Japanese)would fight to death.

War penalties! good!

[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 19, 2000).]

[Urban Ranger]

One of the reasons why the US didn't win, among a zillion other things, was it was on a "Peace time" economic setting. To simulate it, every nation that has more than n% of its units on unfriendly foreign soil must enter a "War time" economic setting. However, this must be approved by the Senate. If the measure fails, excess units are automatically removed from hostile territory.

There are certain advantages and restrictions to a War Time economy:

1. Increase in production
2. No luxury tax allowed
3. No entertainer allowed
4. Draft permitted

After n turns of War Time economy, economic exhaustion sets in and a country must withdraw from war.

However, a country is not under these restrictions when defending in home country.

[Az]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 05-18-2000 02:40 AM Well, if you introduced a government type that fought "limited wars" along with citizens in that country who begin to revolt each turn as the war goes on along with huge "indigenous terrain" bonuses (i.e., natives use the jungle, underground tunnels much better, etc.), then you would quickly have a situation in which you'd either be forced to change your government, buy off your people, sign a truce, and/or plan your attack much better next time so you can hopefully win the war VERY quickly (which of course, would mean send most or all your amassed forces to one area of the map, leaving you wide open for backdoor attacks from angry countries). In other words, it might be a great idea simply NOT to fight such a war, as with Vietnam. Oh, and throw in the United Nations. THAT will really screw you up! These things don't seem too hard to implement, do they? [This message has been edited by yin26 (edited May 18, 2000).]

------------------
Prepare to Land !

[korn469]

ok if we are going to special defensive bonuses for the defender in there territory maybe it can relate to their nations morale level

these numbers are made up using the SMAC system:

+4 morale: +50% defensive bonus in forrest, jungle, and moutain terrian inside of their territory, +25% ability in launching a suprise attack

+0 morale: +25% defensive bonus in forrest, jungle, and moutain terrian inside of their territory, +10% ability in launching a suprise attack

-2 morale: 0% defensive bonus in forrest, jungle, and moutain terrian inside of their territory, 0% ability in launching a suprise attack

-4 morale: -25% defensive bonus in forrest, jungle, and moutain terrian inside of their territory, -25% ability in launching a suprise attack

also i would like to tweak the current SMAC morale system...i say that we divide it up into two categories morale and experiance

morale comes from barracks, norale level, high morale special ability ect. but once a unit gets built its morale won't increase unless you either upgrade the unit by adding the high morale special ability or by increasing your civ's morale level (military preparation level) keep the seven level system and then change each levels bonus from 12.5% to 25% so a very green unit would have a -50% bonus to attacks and an elite unit would have a +100% attack bonus

then add in experiance...experiance can only come from the battle field and all units would start out at the bottom level...each level of experiance would count 10% and would go into effect after the morale bonus...keep the same seven level tier system

so we would have

morale:
very green -50%
green -25%
disiplined 0%
hardend +25%
veteren +50%
commando +75%
elite +100% (+1 to movement)

experiance
very green -20%
green -10%
disiplined 0%
hardend +10%
veteren +20%
commando +30%
elite +40% (+1 to movement)

so if we had two armor units from civ2, the first one being a double very green unit and the second one being a double elite unit we would have the following stats...

1. (10)*(-50%)*(-20%)=4
2. (10)*(+100%)*(+40%)=28 and +2 movement per turn

(if you had a double elite warrior unit from civ2 behind city walls it would have a power of 5.6 so to keep warriors from defeating tanks i think that an armor stat and a rate of fire state should be included along with keeping the firepower stat)

also with morale SE you would get a bonus to morale SE when you were on a wartime footing (and you would get war penalties also) so if you were at a state of peace it would be hard to get units with elite morale

this would also increase the importance of having well trained armies that have seen lots of action...in world war two the biggest problem near the end of the war for the axis powers wasn't replacing the planes...it was replacing the highly trained veteren pilots they lost

in civ right now the entire focus is on having better equipment with those changes good equipment would still be highly important but training and fighting spirit would also come into play

korn469

ps and with a stacking system then superior numbers could come into play also

then you could have large armies
high tech armies
and highly trained armies

instead of just high tech armies

or you could have a combination of all three
[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited May 19, 2000).]

[War4ever]

Korn, as per usual, you have all the answers, if you ever make a game pls remember me and let me try it out

[Youngsun]

quote: then you could have large armies high tech armies and highly trained armies

I like these a lot!

[Napoleon I]

Overall, I agree with the ideas that Korn suggested but I have one possible addition to make. Why don't we make the unhappiness go along with the number of units lost in combat in the last several turns. This way we can simulate both losing, drawn-out conflicts such as Vietnam and short victorious campaigns such as the Spanish-American war of 1898, and the Gulf War?

------------------
Napoleon I

[korn469]

Napoleon I

great idea! i love it

[Urban Ranger]

Any comments on my ideas?

[Napoleon I]

UrbanRanger:
It is possible to implement your idea but I have several suggestions:
1. The War Time economic setting should not be dependent on the % of units but rather on the % of support for the units in hostile territory relative to the total resources generated by your civ. This would prevent a huge economic power with few units from being penalized for a minor military operation.
2. Entertainers should still be allowed to model government propaganda during wartime.
3. I don't think that economic exhastion should set in automatically, but rather that the benefit of increased production should diminish over time, eventually falling below the peace time rate. This would make sure that countries do not stay in a losing war for a long time.

Also, I do not quite understand what you mean by the draft? Are you operating under the assumption that civ3 will implement a model under which some population will be deducted when you build a unit?


------------------
Napoleon I

[Urban Ranger]

Napoleon I:

Thank you for your feedback. What do I meant by draft? Good question.

Myabe we can implement it as this: a country under "war time economy" are allowed to produce substandard units at a cheaper price.

[Napoleon I]

Urban Ranger:

Thanks for clearing up the draft issue. I think that it is a really good idea if it was imlemented. If you want to push these ideas to be in the game you can count on this guy's support .


------------------
Napoleon I

[Urban Ranger]

Napoleon I,

Thanks for your support

I tend towards simpler and more elegant solutions to a problem. Not to say korn's idea is bad, but it seems a tad complicated to me

[PrinceOfWeasels]

Hello! I know you all have better ideas going on, and already pretty much thought out, but I was just reading through and thought of a fairly simple solution that I'd like to share.

What if the people-icons (I'm only familiar with Civ I !) in a city-view could be clicked on, and then changed into a special type of unit? This unit can take as many turns as it wants, so long as it stays within a certain number of squares from its home-city. If it leaves the squares-range, it loses the privelage of increased movement numbers, among others to be named. The people are taken from the production and trade and specialists of the city, not the farming, so the city stays supported to some degree. Perhaps they can also have a limit of so-many turns able to take, once the home-city is destroyed. If the attacker occupies, you see, or destroys, they would still exist using guerilla-tactics.
The special units could be called guerillas, even. While in their sqaure-range, even if the city is destroyed, they have superior defense and attack. Their range is set when they are made, and if the city is destroyed, after their number of turns left is up, they'll die. They won't be able to move to another city, because out of their range, they lose their strength. It would take a real war-effort to beat a nation full of these units. I'm thinking that for every 5,000 people changed, you could get three units. Their attack and defense and movement decrease to the minimum (1/1/1) outside of their range, though, so they can't be used for attack.

I don't know anything about how the Civ2 works with things, but maybe you all will b eable to, if this sounds good, make it work out. 8)
Thanks, all! 8)



------------------
|\/\/|
^(o)o)___O
| \______/
|