The official military topic

he means you have free military units, and you have trained military units.
you have a stock of free military units waiting to be trained.
you train half of them, so you have half the amount of trainable troops left.
you still have the full amount of military troops, only half of them are visible on the game play map.

EDIT:

Quote :

Too complex. Too gamey (what is with the trading experience for soldiers???). The point of squads is to make large battles possible without having your head explode from keeping track of so many troops. This kind of defeats that purpose.

complex, sure. i'm looking at this from a game developer's standpoint. you know, many games can have MANY MANY scripts running at once, sometimes thousands per frame, and this would only add a few.
gamey? what else do you expect from a game? the trading experience means a new soldier is added to an experienced squad, so the whole squad is "slowed down" by the unexperienced unit. and you don't have to keep track of your squad in the usual sense.

if you have lots of resources, you can just disable dragging wounded soldiers around universally, and your squads behave like every other squad based RTS.
if you are struggling with resources, you may want to bring your wounded with you so they can recover later.
if you abandon the wounded, they may heal by themselves. they can be combined with other squads if need be.
i don't really know how else to explain it.

toxiciron wrote:

he means you have free military units, and you have trained military units.
you have a stock of free military units waiting to be trained.
you train half of them, so you have half the amount of trainable troops left.
you still have the full amount of military troops, only half of them are visible on the game play map.

But keeping in line with the SC concept, when Military Specialists are ejected, they are no longer Military Specialists. They are controllable units that are not attached to any SC or MC. We need to make this clear, else SCs will produce order from Military Specialists that aren't present.

Commander Keen wrote:

OK, here you go. After creating the actual squad (one button press in SC/MC) and deploying it, it will have a standard formation (default "Square", but players will be able to change it). Players will be able to simply select other preset formations ("Line", "Colon", ..), or they will be able to select "Custom formation" option that shows a small window like you mentioned. If they want the formation, they can save it and it will appear along preset ones.

Quote :

Can we choose how many troops are in a squad?

How exactly do you mean it? You can assign as many members as you want to a squad, and you can merge and split them on the battlefield.

These two statements seem to contradict one another. How can player-created squads be viable if there can also be arbitrary numbers of individuals in each squad? There are simple algorithms that can be used to sort arbitrary numbers of troops into a square shape, but formations created by the player may well be too complex for such a simple algorithm to exist.

Xenopologist wrote:

Commander Keen wrote:

OK, here you go. After creating the actual squad (one button press in SC/MC) and deploying it, it will have a standard formation (default "Square", but players will be able to change it). Players will be able to simply select other preset formations ("Line", "Colon", ..), or they will be able to select "Custom formation" option that shows a small window like you mentioned. If they want the formation, they can save it and it will appear along preset ones.

Quote :

Can we choose how many troops are in a squad?

How exactly do you mean it? You can assign as many members as you want to a squad, and you can merge and split them on the battlefield.

These two statements seem to contradict one another. How can player-created squads be viable if there can also be arbitrary numbers of individuals in each squad? There are simple algorithms that can be used to sort arbitrary numbers of troops into a square shape, but formations created by the player may well be too complex for such a simple algorithm to exist.

I beleive the choice is either-or.

the algorithm could just be a vector shape the game makes behind the scenes.

(a vector is an infinitely zxoomable artwork made on computer, not using pixels but lines with a set thickness. almost like how a mandelbrot is infinitely zoomable from just a math formula)

Quote :

But keeping in line with the SC concept, when Military Specialists are ejected, they are no longer Military Specialists. They are controllable units that are not attached to any SC or MC. We need to make this clear, else SCs will produce order from Military Specialists that aren't present.

Didn't realize that. Thanks, I'l remove that part.

Xenopologist wrote:

These two statements seem to contradict one another. How can player-created squads be viable if there can also be arbitrary numbers of individuals in each squad? There are simple algorithms that can be used to sort arbitrary numbers of troops into a square shape, but formations created by the player may well be too complex for such a simple algorithm to exist.

After reading it many, many times, I still can't understand it. Could you explain it more, please?

Commander Keen wrote:

Xenopologist wrote:

These two statements seem to contradict one another. How can player-created squads be viable if there can also be arbitrary numbers of individuals in each squad? There are simple algorithms that can be used to sort arbitrary numbers of troops into a square shape, but formations created by the player may well be too complex for such a simple algorithm to exist.

After reading it many, many times, I still can't understand it. Could you explain it more, please?

Alright, if you make a squad, then depending on the number of soldiers in the squad, than the game will reorganize them accordingly to fit a square.

If the player designs a formation of their own, the game cannot recognize the basic shapes and so will only accept carbon copies of the formation, thus preventing the player from being able to chose how many are in the squad specifically.

Tenebrarum wrote:

If the player designs a formation of their own, the game cannot recognize the basic shapes and so will only accept carbon copies of the formation, thus preventing the player from being able to chose how many are in the squad specifically.

Ah, true with simple dragging icons. Players should be able to designate lines, rectangles and circles, and possibly even more complex shapes. These shapes would be then filled equally with members. Players would also be able to select a few basic parametres, such as minimal and maximal distance between squad members, min and max squad size (so it shows only to squads fitting in the limit, ie. not to show a huge formation for two man squads).

Commander Keen wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

If the player designs a formation of their own, the game cannot recognize the basic shapes and so will only accept carbon copies of the formation, thus preventing the player from being able to chose how many are in the squad specifically.

Ah, true with simple dragging icons. Players should be able to designate lines, rectangles and circles, and possibly even more complex shapes. These shapes would be then filled equally with members. Players would also be able to select a few basic parametres, such as minimal and maximal distance between squad members, min and max squad size (so it shows only to squads fitting in the limit, ie. not to show a huge formation for two man squads).

you shapes idea is kinda like my vector idea, except better for simplicity's sake. and you expanded on it to make it more awesomer.

toxiciron wrote:

you shapes idea is kinda like my vector idea, except better for simplicity's sake. and you expanded on it to make it more awesomer.

Yes, it's a shameless copy. Here, take your credit.

Alright. Great work!

So, my thought, building off of that is this: Can we assign behaiviors to certain formations? (Ex.: Gratuitous Space Battles) It might be difficult, esspecially with the unit-type behaiviors also, but it would deminish micromanagement masively. Perhaps unit-type behaivior is over-ridden by formation behaivior? Or perhaps a more complex system is required?

Complex System(Using 'Age of Sail' type technological level): In the formation mini-editor, I have placed a number of ships. In the center, is my flagship, a cultural icon. In front of my flagship is a wall of gunboats, small and manuverable, great for boarding but with weak hulls. On my flanks I have a number of very fast hitters which I will call clippers. (Actual clippers were usually transport ships, so I can't just call them that outright.) My clipper's behaivior dictates that they try and circle enemies, staying just far enough away to avoid getting shot at, and breifly ducking in to fire on the enemy whenever they're distracted. However, I want them to get behind the enemy and surprise them, so I click on the squads and up pops a list of all the behaiviors I've given them, including default behaivior(Unit-Type). I then plot out where and how I want them to move in an encounter. I drag the new order to the top of the list, setting it at the highest priority.

My flagship is a cultural icon, having won several great victories. Because of this, all my units will naturally attempt to defend her unless specifically ordered not to, i.e., I drag that behaivior which automatically was placed in the list (And thus cannot be removed) to the bottom.

I won't even begin to imagine adding insubordination in there. WAY to complex then. Although, if a unit gets too scared, they will run away.

[/longpost is long]

Tenebrarum wrote:

Alright. Great work!

So, my thought, building off of that is this: Can we assign behaiviors to certain formations? (Ex.: Gratuitous Space Battles) It might be difficult, esspecially with the unit-type behaiviors also, but it would deminish micromanagement masively. Perhaps unit-type behaivior is over-ridden by formation behaivior? Or perhaps a more complex system is required?

Complex System(Using 'Age of Sail' type technological level): In the formation mini-editor, I have placed a number of ships. In the center, is my flagship, a cultural icon. In front of my flagship is a wall of gunboats, small and manuverable, great for boarding but with weak hulls. On my flanks I have a number of very fast hitters which I will call clippers. (Actual clippers were usually transport ships, so I can't just call them that outright.) My clipper's behaivior dictates that they try and circle enemies, staying just far enough away to avoid getting shot at, and breifly ducking in to fire on the enemy whenever they're distracted. However, I want them to get behind the enemy and surprise them, so I click on the squads and up pops a list of all the behaiviors I've given them, including default behaivior(Unit-Type). I then plot out where and how I want them to move in an encounter. I drag the new order to the top of the list, setting it at the highest priority.

My flagship is a cultural icon, having won several great victories. Because of this, all my units will naturally attempt to defend her unless specifically ordered not to, i.e., I drag that behaivior which automatically was placed in the list (And thus cannot be removed) to the bottom.

I won't even begin to imagine adding insubordination in there. WAY to complex then. Although, if a unit gets too scared, they will run away.

[/longpost is long]

Okay, i didn't even begin to understand what you were saying there.

Tenebrarum wrote:

[/longpost is long]

Assigning behaviours might work. Something basic like "flank left" or "circling" might work, but I'm afraid custom behaviours might be hard to do.

The flagship example shows we need even bigger formations that group multiple squads together. I think we should call them brigades or regiments. These brigades would be made by grouping multiple squads. One squad would always have to be the commanding squad (flagship in the example). We might also disallow squads to have more than one type of unit for simplicity reasons (variants of units are fine though).

Commander Keen wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

[/longpost is long]

Assigning behaviours might work. Something basic like "flank left" or "circling" might work, but I'm afraid custom behaviours might be hard to do.

The flagship example shows we need even bigger formations that group multiple squads together. I think we should call them brigades or regiments. These brigades would be made by grouping multiple squads. One squad would always have to be the commanding squad (flagship in the example). We might also disallow squads to have more than one type of unit for simplicity reasons (variants of units are fine though).

I'm not sure about how complex things are getting here... Surely just the ability to drag select multiple squads, or hold shift and select multiple squads would be sufficient?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

I'm not sure about how complex things are getting here... Surely just the ability to drag select multiple squads, or hold shift and select multiple squads would be sufficient?

I'm sure squads would be enough for most time, but for huge armies you will need something bigger not to micromanage every single squad.

Commander Keen wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

I'm not sure about how complex things are getting here... Surely just the ability to drag select multiple squads, or hold shift and select multiple squads would be sufficient?

I'm sure squads would be enough for most time, but for huge armies you will need something bigger not to micromanage every single squad.

I know in M2TW, you could group different units together as you wished. I found it confusing and limiting though so I never used it.

I find this may be more important for grouping together vehicles. Unless each vehicle is considered a unit?

Tenebrarum wrote:

I know in M2TW, you could group different units together as you wished. I found it confusing and limiting though so I never used it.

Never played it, so I don't know what you are talking about, but this system is designed to be simple for players.

Tenebrarum wrote:

I find this may be more important for grouping together vehicles. Unless each vehicle is considered a unit?

Vehicles should be considered single units, just like single soldiers are. But when you have got dozens of squads in a battle, you will find it annoying to move them in a formation pattern.

Though if we add some more complex system to selecting multiple squads and having them move in a formation, then we can strike regiments entirely.

Commander Keen wrote:

Never played it, so I don't know what you are talking about, but this system is designed to be simple for players.

I'll see if I can find a video of it at some point.

Commander Keen wrote:

Vehicles should be considered single units, just like single soldiers are. But when you have got dozens of squads in a battle, you will find it annoying to move them in a formation pattern.

Though if we add some more complex system to selecting multiple squads and having them move in a formation, then we can strike regiments entirely.

I just have this terrible image of what a mess this will become when we have ships with boarding parties, making formations on a ship that is in a formation with a number of other ships. Oh God.

Tenebrarum wrote:

I just have this terrible image of what a mess this will become when we have ships with boarding parties, making formations on a ship that is in a formation with a number of other ships. Oh God.

I don't think we should have control over individual members in/on vehicles. Just show that Ship1 has 50 crew and Ship2 has 40, both sides' numbers will decrease until one has nothing left, then the ship is captured or sunk.

Commander Keen wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

I just have this terrible image of what a mess this will become when we have ships with boarding parties, making formations on a ship that is in a formation with a number of other ships. Oh God.

I don't think we should have control over individual members in/on vehicles. Just show that Ship1 has 50 crew and Ship2 has 40, both sides' numbers will decrease until one has nothing left, then the ship is captured or sunk.

What about city-ships? The kind that travel through space? What about Organism mode?

like this??

eumesmo wrote:

like this??

I was thinking more space ships, but yeah.

Tenebrarum wrote:

What about city-ships? The kind that travel through space? What about Organism mode?

If it is as big as a city and has all it's functions, we may give it it's own SC.

Commander Keen wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

What about city-ships? The kind that travel through space? What about Organism mode?

If it is as big as a city and has all it's functions, we may give it it's own SC.

Yes, but what about a city-ship that has weapons? Even if just for self-defence, this idea proves to be rather difficult to concept.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Yes, but what about a city-ship that has weapons? Even if just for self-defence, this idea proves to be rather difficult to concept.

Normal SCs have fortifications as well. It would be just a giant TO that has an SC attached to it. SC doesn't always have to have houses and such, does it?