SC in Ancient Rome

[Edwin P.]

As Rambo has suggested a strategic game built on the SC Engine covering Ancient Rome would be most interesting;

1. You have Multiple Nations - Greece, Egypt, Persia, Gaul, Rome, and more

2. You have Cities to Conquer or Pillage

3. You have Capital Cities - Alexandria, Rome, Athens, Carthage

4. You have Multiple Unit Types - Chariots, Legions, Greek Phalanx, Cavalry.

5. You have the option to Add Tactical Battle options to SC.

6. You have Leaders that can extert an even greater effect on the outcome of a battle.

7. You eliminate the problem with the size of the Atlantic and can show the Mediterrean at scale.

8. You have barbarian uprisings, random barbarian incursions and Mercenaries to hire.

9. You have the effects of supply.

And much more

Of Course, due to the scale of the Game you would be dealing with much fewer units and it would be largely a war of movement hidden by FOW followed by great battles at key choke points and cities. It should also be a game with the potential for a much stronger AI.

Naval Movement would be dangerous for fleets seeking to cross the Mediterrean and sailing far from the coast.

Leaders would be assigned to individual armies.

The Map would cover the area from Portugal in the west to Persia in the East and from Egypt in the south to Gaul in the North.

Cities would have MPP values ranging from 4 to 30. Alexandria, Rome, Carthage, and Athens earn 30MPP per turn. A city unable to trace a trade route to its rulers capital city would have its MPP reduced by 50%.

Sieges would require an invader to surround a city with its zone of control and it may take an invading army several months to take a city with strong walls. If one of the surrounding 2 armies leaves to fight elsewhere then the siege is broken and the armies within can be reinforced to full strength.

MPP Uses:

Fortify Cities

Build Units

Hire Mercenaries

Bribe Kingdoms to Remain Neutral

[ July 12, 2003, 02:29 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Night]

Sounds absolutley amazing, reminds me of a game called Imperial Conquest II which was based in the exact same time period and area of the world as you discribed, with the same countries. The only downfall was the cut-short time limit, which made games where you were just about to win a war or make some big move and then get cut off really suck.

[Shaka of Carthage]

My first love has always been the Ancient/Medieval period. Something along the lines you described I would buy an in instant.

Maybe Mr H should consider some sort of arrangement where we would be allowed to use his game engine, but we would have to do the design work and programming (or even sub-contract it out).

Once it went to market, Mr H could receieve half or so of the profits with the remaining profits split among the members of the design team.

[JerseyJohn]

On a strategic level it would also need to have an even more intense fog of war. There would also be odd situations, such as Julius Caesar being sent to Southern France and going off on his own authority to conquer the whole country -- including Tribes already paying tribute to Rome! In this case it would be Gaul -- which would include Switzerland, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg.

Such maverick events would be difficult to put into the game but would be absolutely needed. Before Caesar fought it out with Pompey, Marius and Sulla fought a Roman Civil War, after Caesar it was Mark Antony and Octavian vs The Assassins of Caesar and later it was Mark Antony vs Augustus Caesar (Octavian). Other Civil Wars came later, too many to mention, but ancient Rome was rife with internal struggles which should be reflected in such a game.

There were subtle changes in the weapons and tactics but, considering these took place over a span of five centuries it wouldn't be a major concern.

[Edwin P.]

Shaka

- I like your ideas

JerseyJohn

- Its true, FOW in an Ancients campaign would be much more intense but allowances should be made for spies and embassies that would report back the location of troops with a one to three month time delay depending on the distance from your capital/nearest army.

- Random Events would be needed.

- Also the weather in the Meditterrean had a great effect on the transport of troops accross the Ocean (but not so much when they traveled along the coast)

Leaders in the Time of Ancient Rome

Leaders of Armies/Legions contributed a lot to the success or failure of the armies they commanded.

In such a game I would like to see the leaders and Kings of the Ancient world represented in a more detailed way than presented in SOC.

In addition to experience, a leader was usually skilled in one or more facets of war. In keeping with the same system I would have leaders give different bonuses/penalties to the units under their command.

I would also like to see leaders give their units a wider choice of tactical options.

Thus units commanded by an average leader might have available only 2 tactical options. Units commanded by a military genius would have six to nine tactical options available.

[xwormwood]

We all know the game which does represent this scenario already:

Sid Meier's Civilization I, II or III.

So why should there be another Civilization from Hubert?

[Shaka of Carthage]

xwormwood

Obviously it would need to be something different than Civ III. Here are some of the things I think would make it different.

Turns

One month per turn. Depending on how you handled winter, that gives you nine (9) or ten (10) turns per year per player. Allows a "campaign" to be around 15 to 20 something or so years.

Leaders

These would be in terms of the player personalities. SC basically has two different "sides". Roman version could go with that as well (Rome and Persia), but could be expanded for as many as five (5).

Then you would have the various leader types that JerseyJohn and Edwin P alluded to. Something creative would have to be in place to handle the lack of instaneaous communications of this era. There is enough grey matter among the posters of this board to come up with something.

Next would be the leader types that would always fall under AI control. The "barbarian" types who pop up every now and then with thier own agendas. Even some of the internal rebellious types (ie slave revolts, civil war) could be covered here.

Diplomacy

Critical element. Espeically in influencing the relationship of the the "minor" nations towards the "powers". Alot of the different ways of handling diplomacy that have been discussed here could be applied to this era as well. Same concept of keeping it simple, while adding a new element to the game would apply. This would be nothing like the way Civ does it.

Unit Types

Here is the fun part. Lets not forget the scale. Thats probably the most important thing to remember as we think about these. This is where the strength point concept of SC comes into its own. Assume a strength point is 10,000 soldiers (roughly 2 legions). Now I can have a "Army", of different sizes, simply by varying the amount of strength points it has. The spotting range is perfect to represent the amount of cavalry within the "Army" that acted as scouts. The tank and soft attack and defense factors represent... let me save that one for later. And the experience factor is a perfect way to represent the difference between a trained, untrained, regular or irregular type unit.

We would have to have the standard pilum and sword type, otherwise known as legionaries. Also would need spear armed, which would cover the hoplite to the phalangites. Both sword or spear typed infantry would cover the "barbarian" types, simply by the lower experience rating. Cavalry, would cover the tribal missle (bow and/or javelin) types. Those three (3) basic types would double to reflect the emphasis they placed on the specific type of shock action (ie infantry or cavalry). I'd love to hear the debates about how to handle the missile effects, for army types that emphaized that.

Then we could even have "R&D", to allow the "what ifs" of nations emphasizing mounted or ground shock, mounted or ground missiles.

Combat, resulting in strenght losses, would be an almost perfect way of representing the losses of the era. Not to mention the gain of experience.

We need to do something about the strength point replacements, but again, there is enough grey matter on this board to come up with something.

Just those basics alone would make it a differnt system from Civ.

[Edwin P.]

Sahka of Carthage: Something creative would have to be in place to handle the lack of instaneaous communications of this era. There is enough grey matter among the posters of this board to come up with something.

Excellent Point

I can think of several ways to handle this;

1. Each side would get a limited number of leadership points each turn that they could use to activate individual units or leaders and their controlled units.

Example: 3 Leadership points would allow you to activate 3 units, or 2 units and 1 leader along with units that that leader controls.

Thus a player can't move all of his units at once in response to some threat. Thus simulating the effect of lenghty communication delays.

2. You could have a random chance that individual units or leaders and their controlled units would respond to orders.

3. I would also say that you can't see the status of all of your units until they are activated or can respond to orders. You would see their last know position and last know strength but would not be aware of their current condition or if they had been attacked until they were activated or several turns had passed or the unit had retreated to a friendly city.

Exampe: A unit that was attacked and had its morale broken would retreat towards the nearest controlled city, however Rome might not be aware of this movement, the combat or the units losses until it attempted to activate that unit or the unit had reached the city. In real life Rome was not advised of combat results until several months had passed.

[Edwin P.]

Shaka of Carthage: We need to do something about the strength point replacements, but again, there is enough grey matter on this board to come up with something.

Perhaps, say that you can only receive strength point reinforcements in City hexes.

1. Simple to program

2. Makes City hexes more important.

3. Prevents constant reinforcement of troops in the field.

Or have unit reinforcements appears in a number of turns related to their distance from a capital city.

Roman units in Italy would be reinforced in 1 turn. Roman Units in Gaul would be reinforced in 3 turns and Roman Units in Egypt would be reinforced in 5 turns.

In addition, the player would have to spend a leadership point to send reinforcements to a unit.

Thus with leadership points you could - 1) Move a unit, 2) Reinforce a Unit or 3) Send an Ambassador to a Kingdom or 4) Order a City to Increase its Fortifications.

During winter months the number of leadership points a player receives could be reduced.

Example: For 9 Months Rome receives 10 leadership points per turn, during the 3 Winter Months Rome receives 5 leadership points per turn.

[ July 13, 2003, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

Shaka: Those three (3) basic types would double to reflect the emphasis they placed on the specific type of shock action (ie infantry or cavalry).

I would also add:

4. Chariot Type - Can Not Enter Forest or Mountain Hexes, +2 AP to cross Rivers

As chariots were not as flexible in strategic combat as cavalry units were, but were more intimidating in battle (I Believe).

5. War Galleys (as opposed to transports)

PS: The best way to test the concepts before writing the actual program might be to play test it using ADC2 (Aide De Camp) or creating the game on paper.

Attrition

A unit should suffer attrition (loss of Strength Points) 50% of the time if it crosses a mountain hex, enters a coastal sea hex or an open sea hex during non winter months.During the winter months if a unit starts a turn in a non-Friendly Province it should also suffer attrition.

Game Scale

The Second Punic War lasted for 17 years. Perhaps bimonthly or quarterly turns should be considered.

Cities

Units in a City Hex would have two options:

1. Go within the City walls

2. Stay Outside its Walls

City Hexes - Units in a City Hex but within its walls do not exert a zone of control outside that hex. Enemy units can freely enter any surrounding hex without initiating battle.

City Hexes - Units in a city hex but outside its walls exert a zone of control into surrounding hexes. And any enemy unit entering such a controlled hex must attack it.

Units within a Beseiged City are subject to Attrition.

Effects of City Conquest - Via a Pop-up Window

Option 1: Plunder - Conquers gain MPP equal to the value of the city. Minimal Garrison Force is left behind. City may revolt when nearest conquering unit is 250 miles distant.

Option 2: Raze - a razed city ceases to exist and its hex image is replaced with ruins. It may not be used as a source of supply.

If Raze is choosen this window would appear with the image of an ancient city in ruins;

In the Year "XXXX BC" the conquering armies of "YYYYY" razed the city of "CCCCCC" selling all of its inhabitants into slavery and poisoning the surrounding lands with salt.

Option 3: Garrison - Strength of Occupying unit is reduced by 1 to reflect stationing of garrison troops in that city. City will not revolt when occupying army leaves.

Effect of Killing the King

Units must make a moral check to retain cohesion if their king is killed. Units that fail a cohesion check are disbanded.

The King unit must be assigned to an army or a city. Rome does not have a King.

As long as the King exists the country will not surrender.

Technology

Ship Design - Each level of ship design gives a 10% reduction in the chance for attrition when at sea.

Communications - Each level of communications gives the country 1 extra leadership action per turn.

Land Tactics - Each level of tactics gives your land units an additional tactic to use during battle (or a 20% improvement to your combat readiness to keep it simple).

Naval Tactics

Trade - Each level of trade increases the maximum value of each controlled city by 2.

Seige Engines (Ballistas > Catalpults > Siege Towers)

Supply Train - Each level of supply train reduces the chance for attrition of land units by 5% (from a base chance of 50% when entering a mountain hex or starting a winter turn in a non-friendly province).

Fortifications

Tactics

1. Double Envelopement

2. Flank Right

3. Flank Left

4. Frontal Assualt

5. Probe

6. Reinforcements

7. Refuse Right

8. Refuse Left

9. Stand and Defend

10. Retreat

11. Fortify Postion

Example:

Defender's Stand and Defend vs Flank Left - Attacker gains 25% Attack Bonus

Defender's Refuse Right vs Flank Left - Defender Gains 25% Defense Bonus

[ July 13, 2003, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Tony Reale]

I think that the SC engine would be better suited to an "Ancient" Strategy Game than it is to WWII. Great idea. Now we just need someone to do it!!!

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka and Edwin

Great job of refining this concept.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Edwin P

You edited as I was posting... so I have some additions that are shown as italic.

ADC2... interesting idea. May have to consider doing something like that.

The Roman Era is huge. I like the concept of each "scenario" being a campaign set in a specific time frame, and that time frame being limited to lifetime/generation. That way you could cover in one scenario Ceasear "campaigns", while in another scenario cover Trajans.

Hmmm... with a scenario editor, you could let people create some amazing "what if" campaigns. Like Roman Republic vs Alexanders Macedonia. Could even get extremly ahistorical, ala Carloiginan "Empire" vs Roman "Empire".

Chariot Type... By the Roman Era, they were obsolete. Only the British used them. Also, lets not forget the scale. The "Army" was not made up exclusively of chariots. Thats why I left them off. Interesting part is how to reflect thier usage. There has been a tremendous amount of debate over the years on how chariots were used. Latest concensus, especially for the British "light chariots", was that they were used as skirmishers.

I want to be clear about the Chariots, so lets look at the Cavalry unit I talked about. This Cavalry "Army", would be Scythians, Huns, etc. Where the majority of the Army is made up of horse mounted soldiers. Mongols would be the best example of the type. Unless you want to go way back in time, there were no Chariot "Armies". But in the interest of flexiblity, why not design a Chariot Army, so if someone did want to create a Egyptian vs Sea Peoples scenario, they could do it. It would take less time to design then to debate about it.

Galleys... another place where the SC naval combat system would be perfect.

Attrition... Lets do it right. Any movement, would cause troop losses. The different types of terrain and weather would just increase the loss rate. Readiness loss first, once you reached a certain point, you would lose strength points instead of readiness.

Ship Design Tech... not sure why you feel attrition would be affected. It was the size of the ships that were affected by the "tech level". Rome, other than the Egyptian food transports, never really built large ships (ie never developed Ship Tech). But if you were thinking in terms of Carthage and Rome, then it would be an interesting choice for Carthage.

Land and Naval tactics... not sure what you are trying to accomplish there. The combat bonuses given by the Leader units (HQ's?) handle those innovations well enough. The "institutional" differences between a Roman Legio vs a Tribal Horde are covered by the experience ratings.

I see the examples of the tactics you were thinking about. Thats too low level for the scale we are talking about. The combat bonuses of the Leaders would cover that. There are a few examples, like the tactical defense, that can be handled thru the entrenchment feature.

[ July 13, 2003, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[JerseyJohn]

EdwinP "Game Scale

The Second Punic War lasted for 17 years. Perhaps bimonthly or quarterly turns should be considered.

I think Quarterly would be better.

If there's a long campaign game spaning centuries I wouldn't mind making hundreds of moves to go from, say, The Punic Wars to The Collapse of the Western Empire.

For player vs player games shorter scenarios can be worked out -- things like Cleopatras United Empire, The Great Civil Wars and Trajans Eastward Dream.

[ July 13, 2003, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

SC Technology in the Ancient World - Ver 2

1. Communications

Each level of advancement in Communications gives you an extra Leadership/Activation Chit each turn.

Example: Rome 3, Persia 1

2. Fortifications

Each level of advancement in Fortifications increases the maximum fortification value of a city or town.

3. Land Tactics

Each level of advancement in Land Tactics gives your units a 25% increase in their combat readiness. Each level of Difference in Land Tactics vs. the Enemy Forces gives you a 4% for an Unusual Combat Result (i.e. an inferior force can defeat a superior attacking force or escape with no damage).

Example: Rome 2, Egypt 0

4. Naval Tactics

Each level of advancement in Naval Tactics gives your naval units a 25% increase in their combat readiness.

Example: Greeks - 1, Rome - 0

5. Ship Design

Each level of advancement in ship design reduces the chance for attrition of fleets or transports while traveling at sea by 10%.

Example: Greeks - 1, Rome Level - 0, Carthage -2

6. Siege Engines

Each level of advancement in Siege Engines gives your units a 100% increase in attack strength when attacking units in Cities.

Example: Rome - 2, Greeks - 1, Carthage - 0

7. Supply Trains

Each level of advancement in Supply Trains reduces the chance for attrition by 10% for land units.

Example: Rome - 2, Egypt - 0, Persia - 1

8. Trade

Each level of advancement in Trade increases MPP production by 20% per turn.

[ July 13, 2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

Shaka

Thanks for your comments, most insightful and to the point.

Re: Attrition

I agree, any time that a unit moves it should be subject to attrition, and I like your idea of first reducing readiness and then reducing combat strength.

RE: Sea Technology

I believe that over time that the ships used by civilizations become more capable of sailing accross the mediterrean (Note: The level of technological advancement should probably be half that as reflected in SC)

Re: Land and Naval Tactics

I was trying to reflect the difference in tactics vs Units Combat Experience that occured over time. As I believe that Experience Ratings in my mind are differnt.

You may have a very experienced unit of Greek Hopilites fighting against an Experience Roman Legion. In most cases the Legion will win due to Superior Tactics.

Likewise, you may have a very experienced leader using old combat tactics.

Example an experienced Leader with a unit that relys on Spears and arrows would be at a severe disadvantage againast a less experiencecd Roman legion that uses shields to deflect the spears and arrows.

I just think that the combat rating of a leader should be paired with the development of new tactics.

Another Option is to give units a Missle Defense Rating - ie Roman Infantry MD3 vs Barbarian Infantry MD0

Re: Leaders

Here are some thoughts on Unit Factors for Leaders:

1. Experience (as is)

2. Intiative - Affects the chance for a leader and the units he controls to move without receiving orders.

3. Guile - Affects chance for an unusual combat result. Ie A superior Roman army pursued Hannibal and Hannibal retreated across the river and then attacked while the Romans were crossing the river. The larger Roman Army was defeated, a most unexpected result.

4. Combat Rating (as is)

5. Tactics (?) - Reflects level of tactical advancement. Example: Barbarian Hordes - Tactics 0, Roman Legions - Tactics 2

Leadership Effect Would be a Factor of:

Experience & Combat Rating x Level of Tactics

With a chance for an unusual result as defined by the Leader's Guile rating

Example: A typical Roman General would have a high Combat Rating but a low Guile Ability (probably should use a different term for this).

Thus he would be less likely to use unusual tactics to secure victory and would rely on the strength of his Legion in one on one combat.

Hannibal would have a high combat rating and a high Guile rating. Thus he would have a greater chance of securing victory against a superior foe.

Ie Guile 1 - 10% that Combat Strength of the Unit you command is doubledfor that single combat.

Combat Ratings Ideas

MD - Missle Defense

CD - Cavalry Defense

CA - Cavalry Attack

MA - Missle Attack

ID - Infantry Defense

IA - Infantry Attack

SA - Siege Attack Bonus

LY - Morale Rating (Roman = 10, Mercenaries = 5)

AP - Action Points

[ July 13, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

JerseyJohn

The concept of quarterly moves is interesting. I was trying to limit the moves in the game to the lifetime of a individual. I don't like the idea of spanning centuries, because then it becomes a Civilization type concept.

Edwin P

Way too many ideas to respond to each of them. So let me take one at a time.

This is probably more a difference in the definition of what we consider tactics. But here is my quesiton.

You may have a very experienced unit of Greek Hopilites fighting against an Experience Roman Legion. In most cases the Legion will win due to Superior Tactics.

What superior tactics do you believe the Romans have that would ensure a majority of victories against Greek Hoplites?

You basically had two opposing lines of troops that fought each other. The major advantage the Romans had, was the ability to relieve the ranks that were fighting with fresh ranks. Without dealing with the initial volley of pilums (which was a big initial advantage), the Romans and Greeks were basically heads up in effectivness fighting each other.

I'm curious what you percieve that "superior tactical" advantage to be.

[JerseyJohn]

The classic Roman vs Greek battles took place in Southern Italy and gave birth to the term Pyhric Victory. A Macedonian King, I believe his name was Pyhrus, was congratulated on a victory and responded with, "Another such victory will destroy me!"

The main military advantages the Roman Cohorts had over the Macedonian Phalanx was versatility and a shorter training time for skilled troops. Training in either system required years to produce truly skilled soldiers, but swordsmen became proficient much more quickly than phalangites, who were required to work very closely with those around them.

I don't know how you'd handle research on a time scale. It would need to evolve very slowly.

The Romans never did find an adequate way of defending against large bodies of horsemen. In one instance, Attila The Hun, Romes worst invader, conquest wasn't the objective, it was sheer and simple plunder!

The final evolution of their arms would probably be cataphracts, which was very close to the Fall of the West -- they're most famous as being used by the Byzantine Emperors.

What would the Victory Conditions be?

Is there a limit on how far the Empire expands, or can it conquer the entire map?

Regarding the Roman Economy. They were extremely gold hungry. Much of this gold went indirectly to China. From the time of Augustus onwards, Egyptian merchants traversing the coasts of the Indian Ocean, travelled to China, where they purchased Chinese silk and other items with Roman gold. The two empires knew vaguely about each other and a Chinese expedition even arrived at the furthest eastern conquest of Trajen -- direct contact missing by a few decades.

Roman sea vessels hugged the coastline and travelled the larger rivers. On occasion they moved beyond the sight of land, but that was only along very well travelled routes where the short cut was brief and a sure thing as opposed to an adventure.

[ July 13, 2003, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Agreed, this should as much as possible avoid being similar to Civilization. I think the two concepts are basically different for reasons that are obvious to those of us who are familiar with both games.

[jon_j_rambo]

Eddie --- Yes, Hubert needs to break out & create something new besides WW-2. That's why Sid Meier kicks ass, he does all types of games: Space, Civil War, Civ, new golf sim thing, etc.

I'd love a 4-player Roman era game. Army, catapults, siege, supply, weather, political events, civilians, tech, etc.

[Comrade Trapp]

Posted by Rambo: That's why Sid Meier kicks ass, he does all types of games: Space, Civil War, Civ, new golf sim thing, etc.

I must say, even now, I believe Civilization 2 was the best game ever created. I spent many days where I played it hours at a time with no sleep at all. If only it was better suited for multiplayer.

Comrade Trapp

[Comrade Trapp]

I wouldn't mind seeing Hubert create a SC type game based on 19th centaury (post Napoleon) Europe.

Comrade Trapp

[KDG]

Civil War, Civil War, Civil War.....Oh sorry, didn't mean to jump up and down begging for this game. I guess many of you could care less about this period of time.

I forget that SC has many Europeans playing. I'd like to see a Roll call put up and see where everyone is from.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Ya know guys, this really does sound great. I mean, really great. However SC Source and base code arent available to the public, trust me, I asked Hubert

A few months back i had the Idea of created a full WW1 MOD of Sc, but, ive done allright with what i have available.

CvM (Yea, im still here )

[jon_j_rambo]

I've stated over & over again. Keep fixing SC & then go onto a whole new genre.

Invent,

Rambo-Hollywood-Vegas