It seems to me that navies are fundamentally different from armies, yet in most games they are modelled very similarly, with a "ship == unit that floats" implementation. I am trying to think of a better model; what I've come up with so far is this: Fleets consist of ships, and each fleet is assigned a home port (requiring certain facilities, etc, but that is not so important here). Fleets are then assigned missions, such as "bombard coastline," "suppress piracy," "raid commerce," "protect merchant shipping." It is then up to the AI to sortie ships, singly or in battle groups. Once in a sea area, ships try to contact enemy merchant ships, or bombard the coastline, or whatever they are doing. If there are enemy warships in the area, battles are fought; whether this escalates into a general fleet engagement, or is just ship-vs-ship duels, depends on just how many warships there are and the aggression of the fleets involved, which is set by the player. For example, I might send my fleet to blockade the enemy coastline; the AI would take care of resting ships occasionally by sending them back to port. Any enemy merchant ships would be intercepted. If I had my fleet set to an aggressive posture, they would fight any enemy warships that appeared; in a 'fleet-in-being' posture, they would fight minor enemy forces, but retreat if the entire enemy battlefleet steamed over the horizon. Conversely, the enemy might set his fleet's mission as "maintain control of sea lanes;" in an aggressive posture, this would involve going for a full-scale Trafalgar-style engagement, in a defensive posture they would try to snap up unsupported cruisers and such. Clearly, the fleet-combat algorithm is going to be quite complicated, much more so than the usual "if two opposed fleets are in one sea zone, line up and blast at each other." Further, for this to work, the economic model must be quite complicated, so that merchant ships are actually useful for something - bringing resources home from the colonies, at a minimum. Comments? Improvements? Incidentally, this is a more-or-less theoretical exercise, so I'm not too worry about questions of practicality - I am happy to assume a Cray supercomputer to run the game, and a dedicated team of 1337 haxx0rz to implement it.

I read your post, and then i re-read it, but unless im really blind i didnt see the answer to this:
whats wrong with the approach of ship == unit that floats ?

How is it any different from soldier == unit that walks
or plane == unit that flies ?

more precisely than whats wrong, what part are you looking to improve by having the AI handle the ships rather than the player themselves?

First, that approach tends to go together with ships being useful only for transporting troops, which is highly non-accurate. Further, on land it is reasonable enough for a division of ten thousand men to occupy an area and prevent enemies passing through until it is destroyed or forced to retreat; that is not reasonable for ships, which are quite small compared to the immensity of the sea. Second, ships are fairly binary entities : They either sink or float, unlike a division, which can be damaged and still function.

Giving things over to the AI is basically to avoid micromanagement, but also to avoid the player having total control over whether or not his fleet engages in combat. Further, this method allows a weaker fleet to have some influence over a sea zone, unlike the approach where two fleets in one zone duke it out until one flees.

Quote:

Original post by King of Men First, that approach tends to go together with ships being useful only for transporting troops, which is highly non-accurate. Further, on land it is reasonable enough for a division of ten thousand men to occupy an area and prevent enemies passing through until it is destroyed or forced to retreat; that is not reasonable for ships, which are quite small compared to the immensity of the sea. Second, ships are fairly binary entities : They either sink or float, unlike a division, which can be damaged and still function. Giving things over to the AI is basically to avoid micromanagement, but also to avoid the player having total control over whether or not his fleet engages in combat. Further, this method allows a weaker fleet to have some influence over a sea zone, unlike the approach where two fleets in one zone duke it out until one flees.

hmmm
i really dont havealot of experience in games with ships being useful for only transporting troops I guess.

I like the thought about allowing coexistance of fleets within the sea territories given the asumption that your sea territory in question is vast.

As for the binary-ness of ships, I would argue this to be a falsehood. While it is true they either sink or float, they are often quite capable of fighting damaged. It really comes down the the damage sustained and the damage control abilities of the crew onboard.

Icould apply the same arguements that you just did about territory control to land units as well. Take WW1 trench warfare for example. Oftentimes units were within range of eachother but did not make attacks, so why not hand over all landbased units to the AI as well?

Im not trying to be critical, Im just tossing thoughts out there.

Good point, I did think about having land units able to have offensive or defensive postures as well. But I'm not quite sure yet how I want to implement my land combat.

On ships again, they can fight when damaged if the damage is in non-critical areas. But if an engine gets hit, they pull out of combat and hope they make it to port; if a turret or ammunition room gets hit, they blow sky-high. Binary may be an exaggeration, but I think trinary is a good abstraction :

- No damage that impacts fighting ability; people may be dying, and firefighting efforts going on, but the ship can shoot and maneuver, so who cares?
- Heavy damage, get out of combat and hope we can make it home.
- Boom! Wreckage.

Quote:

hmmm I really dont have a lot of experience in games with ships being useful for only transporting troops I guess.

All the CIV games? Unless you count the rather silly bombardment ability. EUII, certainly; Victoria, to an extent.

Quote:

Original post by King of Men Good point, I did think about having land units able to have offensive or defensive postures as well. But I'm not quite sure yet how I want to implement my land combat. On ships again, they can fight when damaged if the damage is in non-critical areas. But if an engine gets hit, they pull out of combat and hope they make it to port; if a turret or ammunition room gets hit, they blow sky-high. Binary may be an exaggeration, but I think trinary is a good abstraction : - No damage that impacts fighting ability; people may be dying, and firefighting efforts going on, but the ship can shoot and maneuver, so who cares? - Heavy damage, get out of combat and hope we can make it home. - Boom! Wreckage. Quote: hmmm I really dont have a lot of experience in games with ships being useful for only transporting troops I guess. All the CIV games? Unless you count the rather silly bombardment ability. EUII, certainly; Victoria, to an extent.

Point taken on the Civ games, though I did use the bombard stuff all the time. I tend to be very focussed on what I call wars of control when I play strategy games - I desire to have complete sea and air supremacy (you can also take a guess that I like fighting from islands based off of that)

I was about to say something about the possibility of a shipping being capable of fighting after taking damage to things such as ammo lockers, but any examples of such in history are incredbily rare, and while many of those ships damaged in such areas in modern naval warfare do survive and make it home, most of those are incapable of combat operations until they come back out of drydock, so I wont contest that point.

As a side thought, ships that a statistical, by the book sort of commander may pull out of combat a more reckless, live on the edge type of commander may not, and may continue to press them into battle in order to secure that last little bit of fire power that oculd win the day. Will your AI reflect this, or will it be something that can be set by the player, or will the AI automatically send ships back to port that are calculated to be in non-combat servicable?

Civilization and most similar games are more abstract than rts games. The statement "ship == unit that floats" is false, just as is "phalanx == soldier with a spear and a shield". One unit in these games really is a group of individuals; after all, having three units defending a city can be quite effective. However, I'm having difficulty to think that there are only three soldiers defending in such a situation. Similarly, most ships can transport only few units, while it is ridiculous to think that a modern transport can only have a dozen (or what have you) soldiers.

So as far as Civilization and similar games are concerned, there is already a level of abstraction. The player never controls individual soldiers/ships/aircraft/whatever, but rather groups of such entities.

In many rts-type games the point is valid, however. It is hardly the job of a general to give orders to every individual soldier. Some sort of hierarchy and delegation is required.

Quote:

Original post by Grim One unit in these games really is a group of individuals; after all, having three units defending a city can be quite effective. However, I'm having difficulty to think that there are only three soldiers defending in such a situation. Similarly, most ships can transport only few units, while it is ridiculous to think that a modern transport can only have a dozen (or what have you) soldiers.

just to be obtuse, as opposed to being acute, one could argue that you could defend a city with 3 soliders if only 2-4 are attacking you and you know where theyre coming from :-)

The AI wouldn't *have* to control everything, if you use a tactical map like mentioned in the "managing on a grander scale than civ" thread. Draw in where you want your troops to go, what you want them to defend, etc. Sure the AI would control individual units unless you specified otherwise, but you'd be the one planning out the strategy, without having to try to remember where 60 individual units were going.

Quote:

Original post by xanin just to be obtuse, as opposed to being acute, one could argue that you could defend a city with 3 soliders if only 2-4 are attacking you and you know where theyre coming from :-)

Well, I did originally consider that option as well and found it overwhelmingly true, but still it would be quite silly... :)

Still, even with the degree of abstraction in Civilization, having optional (as some people do like to have full control) automation is always a good thing, so giving orders to units and then forgetting about it is not a bad idea even with a lot of abstraction. And if you started to model things more "correctly", you shouldn't see how the units are doing without having eg. a radio connection with them and even then the information could be inaccurate. After sending units to battle (or whatever), off they go and try to do as they were told. No new orders can be given until they come back unless you have a way to communicate with them (a medieval boat in the middle of the ocean doesn't exactly have high quality communication possibilities with the general on the continent).