Topic: Tactical Combat - Turn-based or real time?

[Demonic_Emperor]

On the Imperium game description page, under Introduction it says this:

"The tactical level allows players to control their forces in real-time battle, issuing orders to their units, and observing as the battle unfolds. Tactical control is constrained by the efficiency of the leaders present at the battle, so a Hannibal or Caesar would be able to make better use of his troops in a battle than, for example, Varro or Vercingetorix."

But further down under Game Features it says this:

"Simple turn-based tactical land combat system, allowing the player to direct the major battles himself. Includes stand-alone scenarios allowing the player to refight famous battles such as Cannae, Zama, and Pydna."

I'm a bit confused, is tactical combat turn-based or real-time, or are you still undecided?  

[Strategy]

Augh, how embarrasing.  Thanks for pointing out this error.

Tactical combat is simultaneous turn-based. This is due to AI concerns; I've yet to see a real-time system which allows the AI any chance. Needless to say, if the game system is to make any sense as envisaged, then the AI must be able to win battles. It doesn't make sense - in the context of this game - to throw ever larger and more massive armies at the player (as e.g., in Shogun).

Thus: turn-based, and simple. But the thought is still to make the battles visually attractive if we have the ressources to do so. We will probably also add the option of "semi-realtime"; i.e., the imposition of a time-delay to the player's turns.

And to get the AI as strong as possible (as mentioned), I hope to release an early version of the game engine sometime later this year for open testing. Hard to stick to the deadline (lots of work), but I'm doing everything in my power to make it so.

[Demonic_Emperor]

Ah, it is good that it is turn-based. I've never liked the time pressure associated with real-time strategy games. I much prefer being able to plan and make decisions at my own leisure.

By "simultaneous" I'm assuming that means the player inputs orders during the turn, but they don't actually take effect until the turn is ended, at which point the orders of both sides are executed according to various speed or initiative advantages of the units. Am I correct in assuming this?

[Strategy]

Well, there will be the possibility of timed turns just to make things a little bit more difficult; but this will be an option, of course.

Simultaneous turn-based is as you expect it, yes. And unlike Shogun : TW strategic AI, the AI in Imperium won't look at your moves before making its own moves.  

[charlesf]

I love the concept of simultaneous turn-based engine. I is close to my hobby of Diplomacy, you know the Avalon Hill game, not the crap and insulting computer product bearing the same name.

I found that in traditional wargames (those played on a board) this concept never really took off, as I would have liked it to. I suppose the constraints of a boardgame particula rly when complex, didn't allow for this. Diplomacy in its simplicity and lack of luck, has created a whole new suspense based on this probably unrivalled in any game be it a board- or computergame.

Imperium is going to be great as it is so downright innovative and captures so many aspects of what I'd call good game design philosophy.

I'll be looking forward to beta-test the battle engine  even though I am far more excited about the strategic side of the game.

I only hope that you are not including any microtactical features that would counter the spirit of being the overall commander. I want only VERY limited control, meaning that only a couple decisions are in your own hands.

Furhter, will there be anything like a pre-battle phase allowing you to choose the site of the imminent battle. I'd like something like scouts reporting army movements somewhere, while you're sending your Legions down the Via Appia, maybe a day or two in advance. You could then start with fortifications or ahtever else. Choosing the site of a battle and deciding whether to accept hte challenge were major features of ancient warfare. Of course, this might mean quite a few maps would have to exist.

AS for the nice screenshot of the 3D engine, this is not quite waht I thought was coming. I prefer having a bird's view of the battle similar to traditional wargames.

[Strategy]

I found that in traditional wargames (those played on a board) this concept never really took off, as I would have liked it to.

It has problems in computer games as well; primarily because it almost encourages reloading, especially when the AI performs the same actions upon reload.

I only hope that you are not including any microtactical features that would counter the spirit of being the overall commander. I want only VERY limited control, meaning that only a couple decisions are in your own hands.

Well there is a fine line to toe here. After all, if its too abstract, it won't be much fun, after all. But the idea is to place the player into the General's boots, so there will definitely not be micro-tactical decisions.

Furhter, will there be anything like a pre-battle phase allowing you to choose the site of the imminent battle.

Yes, extensively. In the appropriate circumstances (i.e., good commanders), you'll be able to launch flank marches (very good commanders with disciplined armies need only apply here), call out the local militia (useful in friendly areas if your commander has a good reputation and needs that extra edge), set minor ambushes, establish minor fortifications (not common either), and of course choose the place and time of the battle.

I'd like something like scouts reporting army movements somewhere, while you're sending your Legions down the Via Appia, maybe a day or two in advance. You could then start with fortifications or ahtever else.

Well, fortifications were not a typical feature of field battles of this period, but - assuming your commander is good enough - you will have the possibilities. Bad commanders will have less ability to choose their ground.

Of course, this might mean quite a few maps would have to exist.

Random battle maps.

AS for the nice screenshot of the 3D engine, this is not quite waht I thought was coming. I prefer having a bird's view of the battle similar to traditional wargames.

Well, the first release should please you then, since it won't have any graphics to speak of.  Well, Imperium is anything but traditional, as you say.

We shall see how it goes with the 3D engine. It is not impossible that there may be a 2D interface included as well, or even no 3D engine at all. Much depends on what resources we will have available when the game goes for publishing.
It may seem silly, on the face of it, to make a simplistic battle system in 3D. Personally, however, I think 3D is the best possible representation for this kind of game if one wants to achieve the immersion effect that we are trying for in all other aspects of the game. And it also allows for some nice optional gameplay possibilities; e.g., such as limiting the player's view to the area he is in.

The game idea we're going for is perhaps most reminiscent of Peter Turcan's Austerlitz and Waterloo; though hopefully much more user friendly to play, more easy to understand, and much more fun.

[charlesf]

WEll, I admit that ancient warfare didn't have much fortifications in battle, in most cases. But IIRC Beneventum saw a battle with romans exiting out of theri fort quite late. And a fort could serve as some protectioon for the bagg age train, which I hope will be a  feature in the game. It'd be a prime objective of the other army to rout the opposing army and capture the baggage train with all the resources.

Otherwise, your pre-battle ideas sound great. I guess that  this operational side of the battle will make for fantastic gameplay. You could outmanouvre the enemy or use the cover of the night to reach new positions without the other knowing about it until dawn etc. Here, I'd appreciate some fog of war with scouting and local intelligence having a real impact.

Random game maps sound great. I hope however that  they'll feature a road network, local vegetation, towns, villages, rivers, coastal lines which in general charakter should be set in the province's information. Once a map is generated for a particular region, will it also used on later battles set in the same region? This would be logical, if the random map's scale is rather large. I'd like maps that allow for one or two days march, possibly, the battle map as such would then be a sub-map. This might be a proliferation of maps, but if all the features you mentioned will be included, hten I suppose the map has to be fairly large-scaled at one level. Curious on how you're handling this?

Charles

[Strategy]

Well, Nik does agitate a lot for camps being included on the battle map. They probably will too, assuming we find it technically possible - and it can be integrated into the system in a sensible manner. Otherwise, the presence of a camp will have effects in the realms of surviving lost battles, and also the possibility for bringing on reinforcements.

The game maps should include most interesting stuff, though the battlefields will tend to be pretty flat, with most terrain features consigned to the flanks.

Once a map is generated for a particular region, will it also used on later battles set in the same region?

Nope. The game maps will be randomly re-generated from the territory's informations each time a battle occurs there.

I'd like maps that allow for one or two days march, possibly, the battle map as such would then be a sub-map.

Hmm - I think we have misunderstood one another.
Basically, the way it is intended to work:

Armies move on the operational strategic map in seasonal turns. Each area is given by a terrain type. When armies collide, a whole lot of stuff happens:
- The opposing general's decide whether they want to engage in battle. This decision depends on a number of factors, e.g., the comparative strengths of the two Generals, their comparative reputation, and the orders they have been given by the player. Aggressive leaders will plunge right in here. Cautious leaders will hang back. Leaders with good command skills will tend to be better at evaluating the comparative strengths and thus better at making the right decision. Both generals will typically have to want a battle in order for the battle to occur. Since few generals will accept battle at anything below 2:3 odds, this will mean that most battles should be fairly balanced.
- If the general accepts battle, the player gets the General's appreciation of the situation, and can then choose to accept battle or retreat (may be costly if the enemy is able to pursue and will lower morale in the army). It is expected by this time that the two armies are now camped very close together, as was the normal pre-battle procedure in this time.
- The pre-battle decisions are then made. The first of which is the picking of a battle site by the "defending" general, and determining on a battle deployment. One can then do
pre-battle commitment of skirmishers (success here allows you to win a morale advantage over the enemy before the battle starts - but of course you risk losing the use of those troops in the battle). You can also use this time to prepare ditches (e.g. Sulla at Chaeronea), plan a flank march or ambush, and all the while your intelligence gets better. This can stretch out over a couple of days (pre-battle turns), until one side decides to offer battle. If you decline the offer of battle, then the other side gains a morale advantage. On the other hand, if you offer battle, the other side will typically get to see your deployment first. You can still withdraw at this point but at great risk to your army unless your General is very good.

Anyway - at some point (probably after 5-6 pre-battle turns), the player must accept battle or attempt a very hazardeous withdrawal. And then follows the tactical combat...

[Nikanarchon]

1. Yes, I certainly am an agitator for the inclusion of camps. The threat of losing the camp was important in many battles.

2. The only real-time battle engine I have seen and liked is that of Caesar2 which I think is greatly under-rated. (NB NOT Caesar3 where to win you just line up under the cover of catapults on the city wall, highly unrealistic).
In C2, you can vary the game speed and pause the game, if you prefer to play in a considered manner.
And it could be even better with some fairly minor changes. Giving the enemy a defensive AI instead of always attacking you should have been fairly simple to program. And removing the ridiculous battlefield testudo and replacing with a (visually identical) doubled depth which had attack(not defence) bonus but was still flank vulnerable(not like a Napoleonic infantry square which it resembles as it is).
And having the elephants as infantry-tramplers rather than stand-off missile launchers would have been rather nicer.
For all these criticisms I have found it great fun to play. The plusses include:
+setting your deployment before the battle.
+the tendency of troops to get confused if you issue too many orders
+the advantage you get if you stay in formation, and the time taken to resume a formation once disordered.
Michael, hope you can build something to better this.

[Nikanarchon]

Many thanks Imperator, for re-rating me 'Strategos' in a straight leap from 'Quirite'!

[Strategy]

Well, have you been helping on the project for 12+ months or haven't you?

Before you know it, I'll be having you instated as moderator on the board and responsible for answering all the questions.

[Philj]

<Apologies if this is a repost - I had fallen off line when I attempted first posting>
(Quotes from all over the place)

The game idea we're going for is perhaps most reminiscent of Peter Turcan's Austerlitz and Waterloo; though hopefully much more user friendly to play, more easy to understand, and much more fun.

I must admit, I always liked the idea behind Turcan's Austerlitz.  You see no more than what Bonaparte could see, you send orders which took time to be reacted upon (if at all), you were not commanding automatons that moved exactly when and where you wanted.  

His engine seemed to predate mouses though.  It seems to me that one of his worst features was trying to set (or reset) a battle line (plus the requirement to word orders exactly, and the artificial limit on orders per turn).  Clicking and dragging/drawing would possibly improve this process.

I was thinking about the way in OFP can use the map to set objectives etc, but as your system will include troops occupying an area - probably in a well defined shape for the legions and phalanx - maybe the appropriate analogy would be one of those software packages that let's you remodel/change furniture for rooms in your house.  However, it is difficult to think of some of Hannibal's celts in nice regular shaped formations.

(I believe that Turcan is back in the saddle doing another horse and musket game with a French name like Bataille?)

I must be strange - I don't want complete control over troops in battle, I don't want complete control over the country (and with a large delay in finding anything out) and I have little faith in being able to maintain a dynasty.

Finally, way off teh point by now, but one of the worst modelled aspects of military campaigns seems to be logistics.  From a comprehensive survey - alright Caesar's Gallic Wars and Engels Logistics of Alexander - supplies for campaigns seem to come from where you are going rather than where you've been (unless you had a navigable river).  I don't mean foraging as this would slow an advance down too much - what seemed to happen was that areas on a line of advance would be 'organised' to provide supplies.  This would be as part of a surrender process, so if the enemy was near you either sought them out to force a battle or you retreated

I think* Engels said that horse drawn transport would eat everything it carried over a period of three days (with no foraging that would of itself slow down the train).  Further staying still with a large force would quickly exhaust an area's foodstocks.

* OK I checked.    

Random battle maps

Though possibly we'd see 'common' generic maps such as Thermopalai, Chaeronea?

Armies move on the operational strategic map in seasonal turns. Each area is given by a terrain type. When armies collide, a whole lot of stuff happens: ...

My first impression is that your following description looks a mix of miniature and board gaming systems - not a criticism, just interested as to how it will work.  

Will armies collide, two examples out of this period but only just - Would Issus be possible under this system or was teh situation a bit specific  - Alex goes one way down the coast, Darius goes up the other side of teh mountains and comes from behind.  Alexander did not know where Darius was prior to his appearance behind him.  They meet in a narrowish valley.  While both seemed to want battle, it is hard to see how either could have kept their army together if they declined battle.  Apologies for simplistic description. (or if wrong).  Similarly, oh what's it called - the one where big Juli got caught by the Belgae before he had time to set up camp.  But here you have a very good general, by his own admission, basically ambushed because he was unaware of his opponents presence.

Sorry, long again and rambling

[Philj]

PS Congratulations Nikanarchon on the promotion

[Strategy]

Well, Philj, Imperium probably comes closer than any other computer strategy game I know of to being your dream game, assuming I manage to include everything that I want into the game. It will be interesting to eventually hear what you think of the abstract game mechanisms that are after all also part of the game.

I've based my model for logistics on my readings of Paul Erdkamp "Hunger and the Sword:Warfare and Food Supply in Roman Republican Warfare (264-30 BC)" and Jonathan P. Roth "The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 BC - AD 235)", both of whom diverge from Engels on some important points. In general, however, I feel that on the scale of the turns in this game (3 months), it is not all that difficult to model this adequately. On the macro level, it will probably resemble Europa Universalis's attrition system, though the system will be handling many more factors (e.g., desertion, disease, starvation). Another discussion, though.

Though possibly we'd see 'common' generic maps such as Thermopalai, Chaeronea?

Yes, this is very much a possibility.

Your two examples:
Something like Issus would be no problem under this system.
Caesar vs the Belgae would probably be resolved as an ambush rather than a battle; large-scale ambushes are resolved automatically in the game system, but are possible. There is an operational command "Ambush", which allows an army to lie in wait for the enemy.

[Philj]

Cool  

Yes, it amused me when I read EU's boards about complaints  over the huge attrition losses - somehow the idea of fighting as you can rather than as you want has not been 'taught'.

Between you and Nikanarchon, I am getting a very long reading list - so far the local uni librray has held up.

[Philj]

Just looked up those books on Amazon (uni struck out).  You have a nice book budget.  

BTW, as we've brought up EU, are Hannibal Barca's short notes required reading and do they count as a source.

[Demonic_Emperor]

It always annoyed me that in EU attrition affected troop numbers but not morale. I'm glad to hear that there will be more factors involved with attrition in Imperium.

[Strategy]

Well, although I do own a goodly number of books, I get most through our library services; an inter-library organisation ensures that we can borrow books from any library in the country through our local outlet. basically means that I can get hold of a copy of just about everything for free.

HB's notes as a source; while they can rarely be faulted for correctness, it would usually be better to go back to his sources. He usually mentions the source from which he quotes his notes.

If there's any interest, I could always put up the bibliography/references list of books used in Imperium that I've have lying around somewhere.

[Philj]

I've been following this thread and the one on naval combat over in "Ancient History" ...

... and I noticed that you are working at the moment on the battle engine.

What is your philosophy on how ancient combat took place and at what level will teh actions of units be modelled?  (The screen shot reminded me of Rome at War with the squares  but with a lot more modifiers)  You've mentioned that there won't be micro-tactical decisions but presumably that doesn't stop micro-tactical actions.  

Taking up the naval discussion as an example, I assume I can't control every individual ship in a afleet but highly trained (Athenians still?) crews can individually undertake more complex tactical moves where the opportunity arises.  Such tactics suggest a far finer level of detail than assumed by a grand-tactical view but not if you have no control (except setting up the conditions in which your more skilled fleet can take advantage of individual exposed ships).

Getting back on land, I can see that you can issue orders which may/may not be tailored to units - so I can tell a Roman Hastati to defend, charge, line interchange?, manouever? but with some disaffected levy I tell them to stay there and hope.  

Taking up some themes from other boards, how do you see skirmishers operating/influencing the main game, similarly cavalry - do you see any as 'shock'?  Willl we 'see' a shower of pila?  Can the Macedonians go for a double phalanx (as in will it be more than two phalanx units behind each other) ?  Or are we sufficiently grand-tactical that what they did is subsumed in their combat factors and general situation on the board.  

Alternatively, I could let you work on the battle engine rather than answer a lot of inane questions and we could suck it and see when you're done.

[Strategy]

I am planning to make a data dump on the battle engine for the december monthly update, so this will be a brief answer (patience). There has been a deal of discussion on this (though some of it is out of date now) at the old message board: http://pub23.ezboard.com/bimperiumriseofrome.

The analogy with Rome at War is not very far off. Of necessity (to allow the AI a fighting chance), the game system is going to be quite simplistic and high-level. Units will mostly act on their own initiative under the directive of their given orders.

The combat system builds on the theories of Sabine, Goldsworthy, and Zhmodikov (though this of course does not mean they would agree in any way with my interpretation of their ideas).

Brief answers:
- Skirmishers are useful for softening up the enemy and using up his missiles. Equal numbers of skirmishers will typically cancel each other out.
- Yes, there will be shock cavalry (lots of it). How effective it will be is another matter.
- Yes, the "shower of pila" is a very important element in the Roman arsenal.
- Yes the Macedonians can use a double phalanx, but will not gain much benefit from it. Deep formations are useful both for Pikes and unsteady troops (thus Cannae may actually make sense in this game system - keeping my fingers crossed).

The overall aim of the design - if a general could be expected to worry about it on the battlefield, the player will also have to consider this issue. All other concerns are handled automatically.

Alternatively, I could let you work on the battle engine rather than answer a lot of inane questions and we could suck it and see when you're done.

Well - if I can keep to the schedule (must admit to being hard-pressed by work at the moment), you might have a simple version of the battle engine to play with by christmas. I am looking forward to hearing what people think about it then - whether its too simple to be interesting/challenging/fun, what loopholes there might be in the game system, etc.