Civil War: Tactical Simulator(Working title) RTS

#21 I like Hawkies idea how about artillery, they could be powerful and slow, i was thinking gatling gun.

what about cavarly?

#22 Gatling gun is considered first real "mechanic" machine gun. It has 6 barrels in a circle, with the ammo put in a long bar and inserted right above the gun, therefore no spring needed to load the bullets, they just drop in the barrel by gravity. There's no trigger either, the gun is operated by a kind of crank. With such structure it can fire about 800 rounds an hour or more.
As i have said cavalry was more of a "mobile infantry" than real cavalry. Commanders often ride horses with sabers to have better commanding range and influence on their soldiers. They rarely charged and used saber though.

#23 I have been reading about the civil war just now and i dont know much about it.
i have found this site though

http://www.civilwarhome.com/tacticscivilwar.htm

how would rocks and gulleys play in this game and other obstacles, for with them at your flanks you cannot be flanked.

(website) http://www.civilwarhome.com

#24 It is impossible to make an impossible-to-cross obstacles or anything like that in a battle (except for high mountain or deep river). The key is to make the enemy's flank attack as slow as possible and easy to notice, and when they reached our flank it would be their dead end.

And besides, how is the game going on? Im quite eager to see it in demo. Niko may be too busy i have rarely seen him online since then.

#25 Have either of you played tabletop wargames? What computer based wargames have you played? I'm curious as I need to research this a bit.

Will, you're right about obstacles in game and natural formations as well as man-made ones (walls for example) played less or greater role in battle. As you say Hawkie, they don't necessarily STOP an advancing army but by slowing them down they become ineffectual or end up in a "Killing Zone" that is defended by a handful of troops. The enemy commander would think twice about "wasting" troops in a slow outflanking manouver that could easily be countered so to Will's point, you in effect cannot be out-flanked.

As for orders - no commander waited until the day of battle to SHOUT his orders. Everything was organized before hand and changes in unit dispositions(?) were communicated by couriers on foot or horseback to the various units - written orders. The wonderful thing about this is that it will reflect part of the "fog of war" situation when the battle begins to take shape and you quickly try to change your plans mid-battle. As in chess, you'll be forced to look for winning patterns, anticipate the enemy and take risks(!). The tide of battle can therefore turn 180 degrees for you in a few moments.
A unit commander decides to act contrary to orders because circumstances have changed or continues on the course his General has set in orders can spell victory or defeat for that army. It's like playing a wargame using email (which is incredibly faster), waiting for the orders to be opened, read and acted upon. In this example, it would take perhaps 10 seconds but think of having that kind of delay in a game - 10 seconds is an awful long time :)

As for a demo, I'd rather let Niko talk about that and his plans but I do know he's focusing on getting other projects out of the way first so he can focus on this.

I'm really enjoying the discussion guys - let's keep it up :)

#26 Did anyone look at the website? if you do not mind me asking.

#27 It's a good site Will, I must admit I didn't take the time to read it throughout - busy on other projects. It's interesting to see how terrain has a direct impact on the field tactics and how cavarly was eventually used. In wargames, how terrain is set up has always been essiential to create tactical interest and in the page you directly refer to, it is evident that the same should apply here.

Funny, because of that, I want to create a tabletop demo of how the game might play now :)

Anyone up for a bout?

Thanks Will :)

#28 Yes i have looked at the website you mentioned quite a time ago. It's kinda helpful for im not even American or European. But it is still very general and doesnt have much detail.

James is right, general tactics are passed down to brigades and regiments before the battle take place. But if we follow the real system of command too precisely it will break the fun of controlling the battle. I have heard about games where you plan all things before the battle take place and then just sit and watch your boys carry it out, whether your army win gloriously or be slaughtered depends on your tactics, the AI and a bit of luck as well. Maybe that's a good idea for the system of command but it take quite a patient to play the battle again and again just because you have made some tiny mistakes and your men are minced on the battlefield. The swiftly issued commands, the skill of dealing with sudden and surprise situations make the man. Anyway my suggested system may be too complex and way too old compared to that time.

I think the most important thing that many RTS game missed is that there are few specific commands. Almost all RTS have commands like "attack", "defend", "hold ground", but i have seen very few games have such things as "break door", "climb up", "deploy in trenches and building", etc. The more specific commandsthe better the player can command their troop and they wont feel that their troops are "stupid men".

If you mentioned it, James, there are some computer wargames i have played:

Cossacks: smooth graphic, fine gameplay but i was always seeking a "true battle" with my PC opponent and what it does all the time is hiring a group of mercenary and attack me as soon as possible => boring.

Takeda: good graphic, good gameplay, this game is the same kind as Niko is talking about: no economy, no resources, just pure battles, i love it but it has the problem of commands which i mentioned above.

Warzone: pretty small game but it does give me the feeling of a real tank battle (nearly all tanks) due to the sound of gunfire and explosions, besides it doesnt focus much on resources gathering which is really boring to do.

Shogun: not to mention the world map mode, the battle mode is a mess as i find it pretty hard to control my troops properly and the camera is really a pain in the ass (sorry about my word), it is also lack of formations and deployments which is critical in this kind of game.


Age of Empire: everyone know this, but i think it's boring.
StarCraft: this ROCKS.
... and several other games as well.

#29 I know this is not the right place but why dont they make something like a box to check whether another user is online or not, and what they are viewing like i have seen in other forums. This way it would be easier to contact or make an "online conference", you know exchange ideas directly is always better.

#30 What i found intresting about the website was that it talked about (briefly), the width and ength of battle lines, you could use this for diiferent startegy, maybe commiting more men in one area and lighty spreading it in other areas.

(a bit like cossacks)

#31 Yeah the length and width of the traditional column formation has not been changed since the Napoleon's time and still in use in the Civil War, but only in the early stages. If you have watched "Battleground: The Art of War" series on the Discovery channel you will find a lot of interesting details about this in the war of Waterloo.
Though many commanders in the Civil War seek a "Napoleonic victory", that is, destroy the enemy's army and even country in just one battle, they tend to conserve their forces, even in retreat, an army of that time wont be easy to chase and route, even by cavalry. Therefore we should consider this matter and develop some kind of "retreat tactics" to prevent the total collapse of an army.

#32 I have just remebered a intresting thing; i remeber looking at a history book and seeing a picture of a ballon whith people sitting in it (i think Napoleonic), this could be used to increse line of sight.

what about the railways Niko talks about.

#33 Hawkie - the "retreat before you're annihalated" could be set up as a morale rule but generally only when fighting a campagn will a player have a real desire to preserve as much of his force as possible - "He who runs away lives to fight another day" :). Things always tend to degrade into a "last man standing" mentality otherwise. This is of course base only on my experience.

Will, I seem to recall that Observation balloons were being put to use at this time not just in Europe. It would definetly make for and interesting addition and provide the player with one some valuable intelligence.

Communication is interesting at this time - telegraph and semifore(sp) were used and of course the rail to quickly move troops and material.

Funny, I'm onboard the project to make the models and now I'm getting into the mechanics of this thing - very cool :)

You guys are really provoking a lot of thought on the subject, I'm really enjoying it :)

#34 I have been thinking about the models for this game in a while. Though it's cool to have a 3D RTS game, it's really a problem with more than 100000 troops on a map, all moving and fighting nearly independently. If we make them all 3D, it will either require a crazily powerful machine to run this game, or it will reduce the quality of the models to very low level. By my estimate, if the troop of each side are about 30000, each model should have less than 100 faces to let the game run smoothly on an average computer. Therefore i think a game with sprite soldiers but 3D terrain and cannonball, etc, will do better. Anyway im not professional in 3D modeling and rendering so my opinion maybe inaccurate.

The balloon at this time had been used quite widely to increase observation but really using it in a battle is quite dangerous as cannon or even good rifle can shoot it down in one shot if sighted.

About the railway, it's the main means of transporting troops at that time, but the problem is the tough terrain in America make it hard to connect regions with railway lines. Anyway the railway had been built for quite a long time at that moment so it would be no problem. Everything, including soldiers, artillery, machine guns, ammunition and war tools, is brought to the battle field by train. And the control of the railway is one of the key factor to winning a campaign.

Another thing i want to mention is the engineers. Many games ignore this force, or make soldiers field-engineers, or give engineers a small role. I want to say that engineers played an extremely important role in the Civil War. Some time in the battlefield the engineers outnumbered the soldiers. Engineers are used to build trenches, railroad, maintaining weapons, etc. They are armed as well. Though they are not professional soldiers, they can fight for their lives ^_^. So i think we should give engineers a more important role in this game.

One thing i get mad at Takeda is that most generals hired after the beginning are amateurs (brown skill if you know it). The skilled generals (the heroic and historical ones) almost always have to go to battle, at least in important or tough ones, and really the number of those general is quite small. As a result i cant let any of them die on the battlefield although it's the samurai's desire to do so. It's really disgusting when you are going to win the battle and suddenly a general of those get trapped by the enemy and killed. You will have to replay the battle if you dont want to loose that guy forever.

We should consider this problem and find a way to solve it in campaign mode, whether by making the new generals more skilled (not experienced of course) by military academy or something like that, or make the soldiers do anything possible to protect their generals.

Well James, maybe that's the way things are: you never know what you will end up doing. I can say you are kinda attracted by the ideas about the warfare so you dont want to stay still but to say something. I guess when the summer comes i will have pretty much spare time (as the university entrance exam will have been over) so i will be able to contribute much more to your game. Hope you wont have finished the game at that time.

Good luck on the making of the game ^_^.

#35 First off, I sure there's lots to do on this project, so no hopes of it being done until Niko clears some time this summer. Secondly, it's interesting discussing the mechanics of the game like this. Virtual brainstorming, but eventually someone is going to tell us "Get a room!" :)

You comments on troop size I find interesting as it assumes that we will represent the units man for man. I had assumed that, like table top games, a single figure could represent a number of soldiers. For example, a facing of 5 soldiers might represent 25 or more individuals. This will make it easier on the engine as well as not be over whelming to the player. It depends on how the game plays out but I see no need to have 30,000 figures on a battle field. Accuracy is one thing, game play another. Still something to ponder.

Balloons are not as easy as you'd think to shoot down and in truth I think they usually were lost due to high winds. The weather really would play a key role in how effective they could be. Something else to research.

I like the engineers. Must have and see how they were used in the ACW.

Generals contributions to the game would perhaps be on the level of morale and perhaps increase the supply of materials, etc. Something to think on again.

Thoughts Will?

Cool!

#36 He he he i guess you are right James, we are really making quite a conference. At first i wont think i could post so many things up here. But truly doing this is so much fun. Anyway this forum is established to exchange and state your ideas right? And we already have this thread as a "room" so noone can complain about anything ^_^.

You know, although using units of men is a good way, it will reduce the reality. I think if we cant manage it, we just limit the amount of soldiers entering a battle so they wont get too big in number. In a RTS really i dont think unit representing group of men is a good idea.

Well maybe balloon was hard to shot down, but it's a matter of fact that in an in-game battle, if we use it we will have to make it fly in low height, and therefore its ability of seeing hundreds of miles far from its position will become somewhat unreal. So i suggest we make it an element of the battle but not displayed in real time. If a player needs far sight, they may "call" the the balloon to investigate at some place and then he can see almost everything there, that is, clear the fog of war at that place.

Some terrain element like forest and high grass field will have the ability of hiding the troops staying in it. Whether by balloon or binocular (war scope) rival players cant see another's troops when they are hiding in one of those places. Only when their troops come close to the other's can they realize who's really there.

One thing im concerned about tactical RTS is that the game may operate too fast, though it may be real time, for the player to issue careful and well thought commands. You see, if right in the beginning the enemy rushes all his troop to your front at mad speed you will barely have time to manuever your boys and establish a defence formation, not to say about counter-flank or sending detachment to attack their command tent (if there's one). And i mean maybe it's real time it's still too fast for the player.

So i think in single play mode we will let the player pause the game at any moment to issue orders. It's way unfair when the AI can process thousands of orders at once while the player has to even move their mouse and click and issue orders one at a time. As for the multiplay mode, it's always fair so nothing to worry. And in both modes we should let the players have time to prepare before battle, maybe set their deployment in advance. And when they press "Start" the real battle begins, troops ordered in the preparation time will automatically get in position as planned. In multiplay of course we will have time limit for each player of about half to one minute.

Oh brother, why do i always find my post to be much more difficult to read than yours? Maybe i make too big paragraph? Anyway thanks for reading my things.

#37 Hello i read something about modern warfare and i talked about bullets
http://www.military-sf.com/coveringfire.htm (line 10)

this is intresting beacause a musket ball or bullet (in those times) would be aimed at large mass, which means if your bullet goes left or right it may still hit the target but if it goes up or down it may plough into the ground or go over the target.

I have been looking at a some history books (as i have not had a excuse to look at them closely before) and basically thought that Civil war is like Napolean and all other 18century conflicts.

#38 I have looked at some stuff and seen mortars, they look very beefy, how would you use these.

#39 Hello my post at 17:21 i said about the bullets because i thoguht that range would have a dramatic effect on firing.

#40 I have looked at some stuff and seen mortars, they look very beefy, how would you use these.