"Unit Workshop" Module List

[Marcel I]

Youngsun, very good work but I got some questions:

How will the assignment of men to your units work?
Will there be effects in drafting a large army to your (food)production?
IMO a unit should be composed of men and arms (I guess that’s what you mean too). You could easily define the number of men needed for certain types of units 3000 for renaissance infantry units for instance, an artillery unit 300 etc. Equipment should be fitted to these numbers. In that way I guess there won’t be much problems with one man units as mentioned in the thread.
The effect of creating a relatively large army should IMO be felt in your (food)production ability. After all your productive workforce gets smaller if your people are occupied in the military. I think you should create a national pool of potential conscripts, where you could move a sliderbar as to choose a percentage of your people for use in the military. In that way your population could drop rapidly when sustaining heavy losses in a war. Maybe gameplay would become too complex but to me it seems a realistic idea.



------------------
Adopt, Adapt and Improve

[Evil Capitalist]

IIRC the blunderbus is like a shotgun for a bygone era. It certainly wouldn't be a rifle- since they needed good care and were slow to reload. I'm fairly certain the only units that could be armed by them would be peasants in revolt.

[Youngsun]

Marcel I

Thank you for the encouragement.

quote: How will the assignment of men to your units work?

Say you have 2 milion serviceable population, if you set the draft rate as 10% , 200,000 men will be enlisted in your National manpower pool. Now you have the basic modules to create any unit whatever you like.

First you are given basic unit set which shows the latest/best module combination for each major military branch thus you don't have to customise your unit in the unit workshop if you don't want.

Then you check your arsenal, which has been stockpiling produced/purchased weapons, to see how you going to design your whole army.

quote: Will there be effects in drafting a large army to your (food)production?

Sure there should be production penalty since you draft your people from the industry.

quote: After all your productive workforce gets smaller if your people are occupied in the military

quote: I think you should create a national pool of potential conscripts, where you could move a sliderbar as to choose a percentage of your people for use in the military

Exactly!

quote: Maybe gameplay would become too complex but to me it seems a realistic idea.

Complex? There are two types of complex things. One thing that brings more fun and the other that brings boredom and frustration. CivI/II are already highly complex game compared to other strategy games that's why this genre has many die hard hard core fans who enjoys complicated features if that is properly represented.

Thank you Evil capitalist for the additional information.

[Youngsun]

*Unit Survivability*

Easy Example
When two opposing units clash, survivability of unit components(men) should be calculated like this:

Legionnaires total melee:50,000 men:5,000
Barbarians total melee:50,000 men:25,000

Note:No armour,support,mobility and doctrine were included above for simplicity.

While one legionnaires contribute 10 melee each to the whole troop, one barbarian does 2 melee each to his. To take down one legionnaire at least five barbarians should lay down at the battlefield(1:5 ratio)


Modified Example
Guess who will survive?
MBTs Firepower:3200(1600X2 hard target) Tanks:100
WWII tanks Firepower:4200(2100X2 hard target) Tanks:300

Unlike ancient melee, higher firepower means longer range(usually)in another word "Initiative" which allows the unit with higher firepower to shoot first before other units with lower firepower get a chance to shoot back(14 firepower held by a WWII tank and 32 firepower for a MBT)

Thus the 100 Modern MBTs hit 3200 firepower to the 300 WWII tanks first. The first test the firepower has to pass is "mobility" of WWII tank which is "5". A Modern MBT's mobility is "8" so can out-maneuver the WWII tank by "3" which is enormous gap! From the modern MBT's point of view, WWII tanks are nothing more than static objects with +3 mobility on the MBTs' side. So the entire 3200 firepower pass the enemy mobility with no problem.

Next is armour test. WWII tanks have 12 armour pts which makes the total armour 3600 pts. 400/12=33.3 Only survived 34(rounded)WWII tanks will have a chance to shoot back. 34X7=238 The remnants of WWII tank hit back with 238 firepower.

5:8 mobility gap means 37.5% of WWII tank hit will be missed due to the MBTs evasive move. Thus only 149(148.75)firepower will be directly delivered to the MBT armour. Modern MBT armour 100X30=3000 3000-149=2851

2851/30=95.3 96 modern MBTs will survive!

Note:No panic effect included(more than 40% casuality will cause morale breakdown)

100 modern MBTs engage 300 WWII tanks then 266 WWII tanks get destroyed by the first fire exchange while 4 moden MBTs were lost. If we introduced panic(shock) effect to this case the remnants of 34 WWII tanks will be in full retreat without hitting back so zero casuality guaranteed to MBT side.

Classic example
Phalanx vs Tank!!

Just one simple rule which is "Modern armour" negate "ancient melee" will prevent any bizzare outcome of when far advanced combat unit pitted against absolutely inferior combat unit.

Note:Modern armour(withstand firepower)and ancient armour(withstand ancient melee,support)are two completely different things here.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited August 28, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

I believe that the Warrior Sibko would work as a city improvement that when built would make all new units in that city have extra bonuses such as +1 melee etc.

It would work for machines and men except differently for men would gain mens upgrades and the machines would gain firepower upgrades or something like that.

I still firmly believe the full-body shield would be a good idea if not a great one even if you have to add more variations
I believe it would only be
-Wooden
For bronze would weigh too much.

[Youngsun]

quote: I believe it would only be-Wooden For bronze would weigh too much.

When we say a "Bronze spear", do we really mean that the whole body of the spear is constituted of bronze? We mean only the spear head don't we? By the same token, "Bronze shield" may represent any wooden shield that are covered or tipped by no metal but bronze. Actually if you want to represent them in more detail the way of using wood should be counted more seriously such as "plywood" for a Roman legionnaire shield. (Btw, there were some near eastern style round shield which consist wholely of light metal.)

A Full-body-shield is just another variation like M16/AK47 for Assault rifle group. If you want to generalise the shield list to only "wooden", I'm certainly willing to do that. Perhaps we need body armour list such chain mail or leather armour. Any suggestion on that?
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited August 28, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

Ideas for armor:

None (0 Defense)
Chain-Mail (1 Defense)
Leather (1.5 Defense) [Archers Armor; last able to use with archers]
Plate-Metal (2 Defense) [Knights Armor; last able to use with horses]
Bullet Proof Vest (3 Defense)
Kevlar (4 Defense)

We could also do helmets if you wish.

Also, surely I have omitted some types of armor as most Dungeons and Dragons and Warhammer fans will notice.

[Shadowstrike]

Chain mail can actually be stronger then leather in some situations. That is why it was more prefered by bthe knights of the period. Eventually, though, it was replaced by plate mail. Leather armour on the other hand, was light and flexible, perfect for archers.

[Youngsun]

Before I put them on the list, I'd like to see how you guys think.

Leather armour +1 armour(archer,skirmisher,etc)
Scale armour +2 armour -1 mobility(heavy inf,cavalry,etc)
Chain mail +3 amour -1 mobility(heavy inf,heavy cavalry,etc)
Plate armour +4 amour -2 mobility(knight)

Note: Mobility penalty/restriction will force each branch to stick with its own style of armour. ie. Archer(leather) Mounted Knight(plate)

Bullet-proof vest +7 armour -1 mobility(This should be extremely expensive)


Darkcloud

Thank you for the list.
Could you explain what is "Kevlar" ?
Helmets are fine. The "Armour" should represent the means of whole bodily attachable defence including helmets but the shield.

[Shadowstrike]

Kelvar is a type of bullet-proof plastic. Note that ancient armour give no protection against gunpowder-based weapons.

Including helmets and shields would increase the burden of micromanagement quite a bit, IMHO.

[DarkCloud]

Kevlar is the army's bulletproof vests. Kevlar is a lightweight material that can reasonably stop nearly any bullet from 20 feet away or something such as that.

Kevlar is an improved bulletproof vest.

[Youngsun]

I see thank you guys

Shadowstrike

I memtioned the difference between "ancient armour" and "modern armour" somewhere in this thread.

[jdlessl]

First I'd like to say that I love this list. It's fantasticly detailed, just as it should be.

Note that kevlar does not provide any melee protection. More than a few people have been fatally stabbed despite wearing bulletproof armor. Generally, it won't be a problem though, since any civ advanced enough to have kevlar won't be fighting with swords.

The battlefield mobility should also reflect what kind of terrain it's best in. Armor could chew through infantry on nice flat grasslands, but move it into a hilly/mountainous terrain or even a thick forest and its got problems. A simple all-unit movement reduction wouldn't suffice, since the infantry movement doesn't degrade nearly as much as it would for vehicles.

How turn-based is this tactical combat? It shouldn't always be 'one turn to close range', no matter what the difference might be. Units would move closer at their combat speed, thus giving the MBT's 3 or 4 unanswered volleys ((32 - 14) / 5)? In that case, you'd want to know the range of a given weapon, since it may not always be exactly proportional to it's firepower.

What happens when two sides are evenly matched? For instance, if the range of the two tanks is equal, who fires first? In the legion vs barbarian example, which side is going to win and at what cost? Most fights aren't to the death and one side retreats or is routed (it's not really a fight after that).

The computer would have to be given some basic tactics when controlling your units. Your archers should be placed behind the legionnaires when the enemy melee attacks, that sort of thing. Otherwise it'll end up losing easy battles, which we don't want. And just because you are attacking a square (strategic offense) doesn't mean you can't sit back and wait for the enemy to come to you (tactical defense).

Medical and salvage capabilities. Just because the tank is out of action, doesn't mean it's parts can't be used. If one side wins, they could use 10 (to pick a number at random) wrecked vehicles to restore 1 perfectly good one. Same thing for wounded soldiers. The usual ratio is 2 to 4 times as many wounded as killed. The survivors could be rounded up and captured or restored to full servuice, depending on who wins the battle.

How would veteran-ism affect how all this worked? Fortifications and trenches? Seiges? Supplies?

--
Jared Lessl

[Grumbold]

Re: Who fires first?

I think it is generally accepted in most 'wargame' scenarios that:

-the defender deploys first
-the attacker may be able to spot some if not all of those units before deploying
-the attacker moves first
-a stationary unit gets first fire if a target moves into its range (provided it did not fire already in its own turn)

I don't know how much of this will be relevant. The CtP2 combat screen involves no movement but does an ok job. The AI needs some work though to make it better.

[jdlessl]

I haven't played CtP2 yet, so someone needs to explain the combat resolution system.

A deployment menu would be nice. From what I've seen, individual battles are utilizing more and more troops, and becoming somewhat rarer. If battles become large and sparse enough, they could even implement an Imperialism 2 type combat interface.

With regard to the Roman Legion vs Barbarian Horde example; as was accurately pointed out, there is a point at which an army will break and run. Generally speaking, the more veteran the troops, the higher casualties they can take and still remain a cohesive unit. The legionnaires will more likely be very highly trained, while the barbarians are, well, barbarous. They'll break at, say, 20% casualties (5-10% dead, depends on medical abilities). The Romans could take 40% (10-20% dead, modded by meds). Thus the two sides would start off killing each other at a 1:5 ratio, but the barbarians would break first and then take a few more casualties in the retreat. Include both morale and experience levels. Combat resolution would thus include modifiers based on relative experience and morale. So happy, inexperienced troops would be about on par with unhappy, veteran ones.

When troops are not in battle, their experience goes down slowly and the morale goes up quickly. Put them in a city and the levels change even faster (we'll ignore le cafard for now). Increasing military spending (for training) can, of course, keep experience from going down as fast.

My big problem is that as the battle realism goes up, tactics become ever more important. Various combinations of number of units, attack range, and basic capabilities will decide even the simplest choice: attack or stay put. It'll be really hard to program a halfway intelligent tactics system to utilize combined arms effectively.

a stationary unit gets first fire if a target moves into its range
This could be a problem in WW1 or later era battles since since by this point some artillery duels took place so far apart that in between when one side fired and the shot actually hit, the other side could find a target, load, and fire back. Maybe a shell velocity value? It'd make any transition from projectile to laser/particle beam/rail gun weapons interesting... No, the easiest thing I can think of would be to make relative casualties per tactical turn very light so that no side gets a ridiculous advantage from attacking first.

--
Jared Lessl

[Youngsun]

When you click your "National Arsenal" you should be able to see something like this.

Trained men are coming from cities through a barrack which might be there.

Munition points,other industrial products and such can be produced from your factories or purchased from other technologically superior nations.

Munition points(advanced)are for something more advanced than basic infantry weapons like mobile SAM.

Higher firepower means more consumption of munition pts.



Then you should be able to form a unit such as division or brigade which can be stacked together as a bigger organisation.

By using the basic elements from your arsenal, you can customise your divisions and such for whatever taste you've got.

You can give more heavy equipments to your division if you want high firepower support or reduce heavy stuffs to have agile mountain troops which fight in rugged terrain.

Now you have 5 units
2 infantry divisions
1 mechanised brigade
1 armoured brigade
1 air-borne brigade

You can control them separated as they are now or if you don't want that kind of micromanagement you can group them as corp,army or special task force and name them whatecver you like to name it thus you have the feeling of controlling one big unit.

A unit lose its men and equipments during a battle and as long as you have enough stocks of men and equipments in your arsenal you wouldn't have any problem to sustain them.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited December 26, 2000).]

[Youngsun]

Hello jdlessl

quote: The battlefield mobility should also reflect what kind of terrain it's best in. Armor could chew through infantry on nice flat grasslands, but move it into a hilly/mountainous terrain or even a thick forest and its got problems. A simple all-unit movement reduction wouldn't suffice, since the infantry movement doesn't degrade nearly as much as it would for vehicles.

You've been reading this thread carefully and thoroughly(I can certainly see that)and you have an excellent point there.

As you have pointed out, among ground force, infantry troops should be the least to be affected by their surrounding terrain considering unit movement while they have the best chance of exploiting it for defense.

quote: How turn-based is this tactical combat? It shouldn't always be 'one turn to close range',no matter what the difference might be. Units would move closer at their combat speed, thus giving the MBT's 3 or 4 unanswered volleys ((32 - 14) / 5)? In that case, you'd want to know the range of a given weapon, since it may not always be exactly proportional to it's firepower.

Misunderstanding there and its my fault. I should have said this model doesn't support tactical map system.

Unlike ctp& ctpII, this is more like colonisation or civilisation with exception of stacked combat concept which is greatly enhanced by complicated bonus factors.

Battlefield mobility affects a battle as a part of combat bonus nothing more OK?

quote: What happens when two sides are evenly matched? For instance, if the range of the two tanks is equal, who fires first? In the legion vs barbarian example, which side is going to win and at what cost? Most fights aren't to the death and one side retreats or is routed(it's not really a fight after that).

then defending side has upper hand and for the [b]Initiative[b] thing they(equally matched tanks) both exchange fire at the same time.(it is simulatable and some game did it beautifully).
Yes since the fight is between human beings who become cowards after they get bashed too much(demoralisation)retreat,draw,surrender and such should be represented in the game.

quote: you are attacking a square (strategic offense) doesn't mean you can't sit back and wait for the enemy to come to you (tactical defense).

Sure I want it represented in a way which establishes the field engagement situation like this

1.Assault & Defense(attackers assault and defenders defend)-result can be decisive if both sides are determined
2.Engagement(both sides assault and collide)-result can be decisive
3.Limited engagment(both sides don't send out major portion of their army)

and this could also be effected by random factors with resonable predictability so there is no more fixed attackers' attack and defenders'defense even if your unit enters an enemy held square you might have two or more possible scenarios.

quote: When troops are not in battle, their experience goes down slowly and the morale goes up quickly. Put them in a city and the levels change even faster (we'll ignore le cafard for now). Increasing military spending (for training) can, of course, keep experience from going down as fast.

Yes and this should expensive for more modern units since they consume munitions and fuel to have military exercises.

quote: My big problem is that as the battle realism goes up, tactics become ever more important. Various combinations of number of units, attack range, and basic capabilities will decide even the simplest choice: attack or stay put. It'll be really hard to program a halfway intelligent tactics system to utilize combined arms effectively.

With tactical battle map, that would be the inevitable outcome but as a leader of nation, we should more concerned about how many jets are purchased or how is our war industry going rather than ordering a tank unit to advance 2 squares of battlefield to shoot enemy troops unless you've got Hitler's mean spirit(just kidding). I mean there should be clear line what we can do and can't do in terms of scale and I prefer and the very characteristics of the game requires stable strategic decision making with perhaps few detailed affair for added flavour.

[quote]the easiest thing I can think of would be to make relative casualties per tactical turn very light so that no side gets a ridiculous advantage from attacking first.[quote]

Yes point taken.



[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited December 26, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

Youngsun- welcome back! (but for how long)

Good .gif's

[Youngsun]

How's it going Darkcloud!
you are now king!
Your majesty prince Youngsun at your service haha

[jdlessl]

Thank you, Youngsun. I think that after AI/diplomacy, combat resolution is the most important thing in the game.


Hmmm, I don't think you can have it both ways: Introduce weapons range as a real tactical modification but then keep it so simple that one side gets only one combat turn to utilize an advantage, no matter how overwhelming.

For instance, 30000 Roman Legionnaires against 1000 GI's with M16's and plenty of ammo. Chances are, those poor Romans would get absolutely slaughtered. But using this combat model, 22500 (60k-15k / 2) guys (more, actually, given the extra mobility of Ancient Men. incidentally, I thought making the distinction between them a nice touch.) would survive the initial attack. After that, the GI's would be screwed, since the iron sword has a higher melee rating than the advanced rifle. And given the odd combinations of technical abilities found in a Civ game, this is not an unlikely battle. But it can't be totally in favor of firepower, since if it were, say, 10k Romans against a scouting party of 100 GI's, the Romans would certainly win, though they'd take some heavy casualties.

It also occurs to me that some weapons are of very little use against certain types of enemies. Armor piercing tank rounds would not be the weapon of choice against massed infantry. The current weapons list makes no distinction. But that, perhaps, is a bit too detailed. In any event, a decent commander would have supporting infantry and specifically anti-infantry weapons anyway.

With regard to defender advatage: in melee attacks, this wouldn't make much of a difference, since by the time the defender can hit the other side, so can the attacker. Thus, no advantage given. Defensive advantage would really only go to troops with cover and ranged attacks.

Yeah, I realize that building cities is going to be more on my mind than commanding an individual tank. I think it will be possible to have the computer resolve the battle all by itself, but first we have to work out a realistic model for it to operate on. I say this as if Sid were hanging on our every word

Now that I think about it, getting the computer to attack or defend is mostly a matter of comparing maximum ranges of each side. The longbow archers can sit tight but the opposing composite bow archers must move closer to attack. Melee troops would stick close to the ranged ones, but if the enemy has ranged troops that can hit them, they'll move to attack.

I think that using a turn-based system like this would resolve combat on a 1-D line rather than a 2-D map. Units can move closer or further away, but not lateral. Simplfies things immensely, no? Throw in some random modifiers like Youngsun suggested, ideally ones that could turn the tide in a close battle but not allow spear-toting militia to beat a battleship, and combat becomes quite realistic indeed.

Of course, we have yet to figure out how aircraft will operate in all this.

--
Jared Lessl

[Youngsun]

I think "Diplomacy" is the most important thing to be improved if we prioritise a wish list.

There is no preset weapon-range for arms within the list and "Initiative" applies when there is clear gap between two oppsossing sides' firepower.

Let me clarify the Firepower vs. Ancient melee isssue.

"Melee" represents close hand-to-hand combat capability whereas "Firepower" can covers both close combat/ranged combat as long as the battle goes on in favour for firepower-based units.

Thus if those GIs want to shoot their rifles rather than using their bayonets, they can or will do so without any problem.

Also the GIs get "Initiative" all the time since legionnaires' weapons are outranged by advanced rifle.

1000 Advanced rifle armed band vs. 30000 legionnaires

1000 X 15 firepower = 15000 firepower & 3000 melee
30000 X 6 melee = 180000 melee

The most favourable battle situation for those legionnaire would be "engagement"(both sides collide)but that is highly unlikely since the GIs get initiative but this time let's give these legionnarire some chance.

Engagement
1000 GI shoots 15000 firepower delivered.
15000 legionnaires died.
15000 legionnaires hit with 15000 melee.
(15000:3000 = 5:1)
1000 GIs lay dead
200 Legionnaire died
Legionnaire KIA:15200
GI KIA:1000

Of cours this case was greatly simplified and utterly ridiculous.

1.Modern Infantry formation would have far more firepower support than pure rifles such as attached artillery formation.(with artillery,mortar,machine-gun support even 500 GIs will be able to wipe out 30000 leionnaires)
2.No commanders would allow their GIs charge against a legion when they are outnumbered. We also often see in the course of history when greatly supeior colonial force which is numerically inferior against its oppsossing native force it just dug in.
3.When fully equipped, leionnaires' mobility is hopeless outmatched against partially motorised modern infantry formation and if fully motorised or mechanised the gap will be simply unimaginable.
Ancient men might be faster but their movement get ristricted as they get more equipments. Iron armour reduces 1 mobility. Iron shield reduces 1 mobility and mule reduces 1 also already the poor legionnaire can't take any more! unless he doesn't want to move.
4."Engagement" will be obsolete combat move after firepower weapons dominate battlefield and those riflemen will just dug in unless you see two armoured forces clash.
5.High firepower inevitabley leads a change of military doctrine from jam packed formation of musketeer/legion to dispersed more modern formation to avoid massive slaughter which can be done by automatic firearms thus modern troops get higher survivability. So when two opposing forces have the same total firepower but one is superior in firearms & doctrine(dispersion tactic)and the other is not, the one with supeior arms/doctrine will triumph with less casualties against the one is inferior in those area. Just imagine 6000musketeers vs. 500 GIs.

So What I'm trying to say is that in normal game circumstance, legionnaires don't have chance to defeat those GIs unless mighty god is on their side so every situation goes exactly right for them.

quote: It also occurs to me that some weapons are of very little use against certain types of enemies. Armor piercing tank rounds would not be the weapon of choice against massed infantry. The current weapons list makes no distinction. But that, perhaps, is a bit too detailed. In any event, a decent commander would have supporting infantry and specifically anti-infantry weapons anyway.

quote: Armour Basic tank(or Inf-tank) +8 armour +6 firepower +1 mobility(1.ignores trench effect 2.Ancient enemy melee/support negated ->applied to all armour) Heavy Tank +10 armour +6 firepower(X2 vs hard target) +2 mobility 'Blitzkrieg' tank(WWII) +12 armour +7 firepower(X2 vs hard target) +5 mobility can "blitz"->applied to all armours after this MBT(post WWII) +16 armour +12 firepower(X2 vs hard target) +7 mobility MBT(next generation) +30 armour +16 firepower(X2 vs hard target) +8 mobility(finally it equals 3 map mobility)

You see those X2 vs. hard target? MBT(next generation) will have 16 firepower when they face infantry troops or other soft targets but will throw 32 firepower at enemy armour/hard targets.

quote: With regard to defender advatage: in melee attacks, this wouldn't make much of a difference, since by the time the defender can hit the other side, so can the attacker. Thus, no advantage given. Defensive advantage would really only go to troops with cover and ranged attacks.

Exactly. that's why those GIs would dug in rather than charge.


Modern Armoured force vs. WWII Panzer force
First line should be occupied with shock/melee troops and support/reserve troops line up for next line.(their lining up can be changed/customised and that depends on what mission you give to your units.

Indirect Fire Support/Close Air Support/Air support/Naval support can be used and it's all depends on situation.(adjacent units may contribute in firepower support)

A combat should be resolved something like a Colonisation style but with complicated bonus factors which can shown during the battle.

I'll demonstrate my version of "air warfare" in next reply.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited December 28, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited December 28, 2000).]

[jdlessl]

Ok, I'm clear on the Initiative/Melee stuff. It's the movement thing I still have problems with.

quote: Of course this case was greatly simplified and utterly ridiculous. So What I'm trying to say is that in normal game circumstance, legionnaires don't have chance to defeat those GIs unless mighty god is on their side so every situation goes exactly right for them.

Uhh, but as we both pointed out, using your model, the Romans win. And even if the GI's dig in and get some defense bonus, the Romans will still cream them. What we want is to change the combat model so that crazy results like the Romans winning this battle don't happen. I am, of course, open to suggestions. And it's not a ridiculous scenario. Why can't I just send out a company or two of GI's and expect them to scour the countryside clean of Iron Age soldiers? What if I'm fresh out of tanks and APC's? They do, after all, require a lot of maintenance. Those grunts should still be able to handle a bunch of legionnaires, even without armored support.

My bad on the tank vs infantry stats. Didn't read the specs carefully enough.

Those pictures are fantastic. Where are you getting them all?

--
Jared Lessl

[Grandpa Troll]

I would like to see a Bombard Cannon..similiar to AOE unit..where you could move and bombard on same turn...maybe eveen have a later stage unit..like modern era..where it could be upgraded to a Multiple Warhead launcher...just a thought


Troll

[Youngsun]

Happy new year guys!

*Mobility
1.Men have pre-given movement bonus(ie. modern men:2)
2.Arms & equipments(personnel)effect men's move by reducing the given bonus as they are provided to those men. When an ancient man get an iron armour(-1 move) his original move "4" will be reduced to "3".
3.Horses provide positive effect on men's move by increasing it during ancient/medieval era.
4.Modern men can have more options for their transport ranging from trucks to air transport(horses can still be used if you insist)
5.Heavy equipments like catapult or field artillery pieces require at least horses or something bigger transports to be carried around.
6.When you give enough horses to a unit(fully mounted)that unit's mobility increases dramatically.
7.When you give substancial number of horses to a unit but not enough to be fully mounted troop that unit get partial battlefield mobility bonus but Map mobility stay that same as the slowest moving element which exist within the unit.

Example (1)-cavalry formation
3000 armed men + 5000 Horses
This troop is fully mounted and any left over horses can be used as extra baggage carrier so the unit can last longer without meeting a friendly supply column.

Example (2)-partially mounted formation/mixed
3000 armed men + 1000 Horses
Major portion of the troop are foot soldiers and if there are many supply & heavy equipments to be carried there is strong possiblity that this unit has very small number of cavalry men indeed. However this troop get some battle field mobility bonus due to presence of mounted troop within the unit if there is any.

Example (3)-pure infantry formation
3000 armed men + 200 Horses
This is an obivious infantry formation with small number of attached mounted scouts/dispatch riders and some horse drawn supply carts.

quote: What we want is to change the combat model so that crazy results like the Romans winning this battle don't happen. I am, of course, open to suggestions.

Good call!

First suggestion:What about simply increasing other firearms's stat? So an advanced rifle might get 30 firepower instead of previous 15.

Second suggesiton:Introduction of firearms' range concept perhaps? Here goes an example. One prmitive bow armed band vs. Longbowmen. Since primitve bow has range of 2 while longbow has 5, Lonbowmen can shoot 3 times until they finally receive primitive bowmen's retalitory volley(5-3=2) By the same token, Advanced rifle men will shoot 15 times until they are eventually forced be engaged in hand to hand combat Thus the second volley of 1000 riflemen will wipe out 30000 legionnaire. The minium required number of GIs to score victory against 30000 legionnaires is 133.3 men and if you have less GIs than that pray to the God

Those pictures are all from Steel Panters I & II and I like them too(detailed graphics but simple/clean image for an easy recognition)

quote: I would like to see a Bombard Cannon..similiar to AOE unit..where you could move and bombard on same turn...maybe even have a later stage unit..like modern era..where it could be upgraded to a Multiple Warhead launcher

"MLRS" is in the list as well as the bombard.




Air units should have "Range(=how many squares)" and usually bombers have longer operational range than fighters do. You may give orders like CAP mission,Interdiction,Interception,CAS mission ,bombing a specific target,etc. Missions such as bombing a specific target will have instant result while CAS(close air support)mission will be incorporated with ground forces' operation as you can see "combat screen" in my previous post.

Aircraft Speed/weather condition(maybe not considering the time scale of the game )/distance from target area should determine how many sorties can be made during the turn so faster aircrafts which have very close target from their base will have more sorties than slower ones with further target.




Naval operation of air units will have extra missions such as Anti-sub & Anti-vessel missions.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited January 01, 2001).]

[Mark_Everson]

Hi!

I've been lurking on this discussion for the past week, and I have some info that might do your model some good. I think your numbers for modern weapons effectivenesses are Waaaaay too low. That's why you are getting the Romans beating modern soldiers . My sources (more below) say that the theoretical killing power of FE a WWII machine gun is about 250x as large as an individual legion member (sorry don't have numbers for M16 etc. but its probably at least 50x). And that is assuming the legion is fighting with modern-style dispersion. If they stayed in Any type of formation it would be a massacre. And, as has been mentioned before, the analysis also doesn't include morale either. If Half a group of men were killed/disabled before even Reaching the enemy, they would historically have broken Long before reaching them for hand-to-hand IMO. So that may be another thing you could include explicitly. (I know its been discussed here in general terms.) Anyway I will give you a reference to some info you can use if you're interested...

I've done a lot of research over the past several years for the Clash military system, and I have a wonderful quantitative resource for military firepower over the ages from which the info above came. Its a statistical study of warfare done by a group headed by a guy named Dupuy. He generated a numerical battle-results calculator! Now, I wouldn't necessarily trust the numbers with real lives at stake... but for a game its quite adequate. I discuss some of his system (and my adaptation of it), and give a table showing a historical range of weapons types and dispersions at:
http://people.mw.mediaone.net/markev...ash_combat.htm . The table is about half way down the page. We also have a battle system two guys who've left the project worked on that you may be interested in. Its at:
http://www.usq.edu.au/users/krenske/...v/scouting.htm .

Happy New Year,

-Mark


------------------
Mark Everson
Project lead for The Clash of Civilizations
(That means I do the things nobody else wants to do ;-) )
This Radically different civ game needs your suggestions and/or criticism of our design.
Check our our Forum right here at Apolyton...


[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited January 01, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

Hello Mark

Thanks for the info. Mark but I couldn't get access to first URL(http://people.mw.mediaone.net/markeverson/clash_combat.htm)!!!
Now I will go to your site directly to look for the table.

Yes now I feel that modern firearms should have get much higher firepower. Also another thing that I have in my mind is that introduction of "suppressing fire". Suppressing fire is used in almost every modern combat to pin down enemy soldiers without necessarilly killing them and approximately 60~80% of firepower of a modern combat unit will be used to suppress enemy troops(may vary for different circumstances)If that is added into the model only 2000~6000 of legionnaires will be killed instead of wholesale 15000 but those surviving element of the legion(9000~13000)will be suppressed so won't be able to take part in hand-to-hand combat. Of course this overlap certain part of morale simulation and more work should be done to compromise both concepts into a working one.

[Matthew Hayden]

I couldn't find the combat thread, so i'll just post here instead.
I propose a triple LASS system, in which every unit has an Attack, Ranged, and Defensive value for Land, Air,Sea and Space.

eg, a hoplite may have

L A S S
A 1 0 0 0
R 0 0 0 0
D 2 0 0 0

Evasion 1 - 'cause all that armour slows him down
H'Points2 - but it also makes him tougher!
F'Power 2 _ this is the number of hitpionts the enemy loses if the hoplite atacks or defends successfully.

[Youngsun]

quote: I couldn't find the combat thread, so i'll just post here instead. I propose a triple LASS system, in which every unit has an Attack, Ranged, and Defensive value for Land, Air,Sea and Space. eg, a hoplite may have L A S S A 1 0 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 D 2 0 0 0 Evasion 1 - 'cause all that armour slows him down H'Points2 - but it also makes him tougher! F'Power 2 _ this is the number of hitpionts the enemy loses if the hoplite atacks or defends successfully.

Impressive! Did you make it yourself Matthew?

[Matthew Hayden]

Indeed, thanx for the positive feedback Youngson.
I'll add some more of my ideas periodically as long as there's any interest.


Anti-Tank Helicopter; (Apache?)

L A S S

A: 16 12 16 0 Special; +25% attack against AFV's
R: 20 20 20 0 Has high defense because
D: 12 12 12 0 of it's counter-measures,
which also boosts the evasion
Evasion =7 slightly
Armor =12-Apaches have medium armor, which protects them from most small arms and machine-guns.

Firepower=7-Helfire missiles can blast through almost anything, ever!!


Feel free to use this system (modified from the current LASS idea which is already in the list) to produce your own ideas. I'm sure most of you can come up with something better than this.

[Youngsun]

quote: I'll add some more of my ideas periodically as long as there's any interest.

Don't worry about losing interest Matthew just post it and that will help to keep this thread alive.

quote: Feel free to use this system (modified from the current LASS idea which is already in the list) to produce your own ideas. I'm sure most of you can come up with something better than this.

Silly me I'd better check the list more often thanks for the info.